Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?

There's something very odd going on in space - something that shouldn't be possible. It is as though vast swathes of the universe are being hoovered up by a vast and unseen celestial vacuum cleaner. Sasha Kaslinsky, the scientist who discovered the phenomenon, is understandably nervous: 'It left us quite unsettled and jittery' he says, 'because this is not something we planned to find'.

The accidental discovery of what is ominously being called 'dark flow' not only has implications for the destinies of large numbers of galaxies - it also means that large numbers of scientists might have to find a new way of understanding the universe. Dark flow is the latest in a long line of phenomena that have threatened to re-write the textbooks. Does it herald a new era of understanding, or does it simply mean that everything we know about the universe is wrong?

14 billion years ago there was nothing; then everything exploded into existence and the universe was born, but a new generation of cosmologists are questioning this theory. Cosmologists have created a replica of the universe by using equations; it’s called the standard model of cosmology and it’s the reason behind the Big Bang theory; however, this model is now doubted. Professor Alan Guth’s theory challenges the Big Bang by stating that the universe started out small, allowing the temperature to even out everywhere, before expanding on a massive scale.

Stars nearer the edge of a galaxy move just as fast as those in the centre. This made cosmologists think that galaxies needed more gravity, but the only way to get more gravity was to create it. Astrophysicist Dan Bauer is hunting for dark matter half a mile under the dark plains of Minnesota in order to trace and record it more effectively. The discovery that the universe is speeding up suggests that a new force is powering the universe. This force is known as dark energy, and cosmologists have no idea what it is.

The combination of the standard model, inflation and dark matter has given way to a new theory called dark flow. The nature of this theory could show that our universe isn't the only one. The standard model of cosmology has withstood much criticism, therefore making the theory stronger; however it could still be totally wrong.

For years, I have been pointing out to astrophysicists and other scientists, science channels, science organizations, and editors of science magazines how and why the “Big Bang Theory” is invalid (because it is based on invalid mathematical assumptions). But it appears that my points have been ignored. However, based on evidence recently presented in the Science Channel’s episode Ref #1a above, I shall try again.

1. Perhaps the easiest way to prove that the Big Bang Theory is invalid is as follows:

a. The Big Bang theorists have computed (according to their mathematical assumptions) that our universe was created essentially “out of nothing” 13.8 billion years ago.

b. The above Ref #1 episode points out that the oldest star scientists have been able to find so far is over 13.6 billion light years away. Dr. Stefan Keller of the Australian National University discovered this star based on elements in its light spectrum and observing that it had an incredibly low content of iron and a little bit of carbon which shows that it is at least a second generation star (created from the debris of at least one supernova before it formed). It is significant to note that (like me) Dr. Stefan Keller evidently doesn’t believe that the Big Bang Theory is valid, because his light spectrum analysis of our star (the Sun) is that it was derived from “about a thousand generations of stars before it.” The Ref #1 episode didn’t mention a name for that star, so for discussion purposes, I shall refer to it as “OldestStarSoFar.”

c. It seems to me that any astrophysicist can disprove the Big Bang Theory simply by locating any celestial object that:

1) Is in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM EARTH from the direction to earth of the OldestStarSoFar described above.

2) Is moving generally TOWARD EARTH.

3) And is at least FOUR BILLION light years away from earth.

d. That would mean that OldestStarSoFar would be at least 17.6 billion light years away from the celestial object that meets the three criteria described above. How could that be possible if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old as the Big Bang theorists claim?

2. A far simpler explanation for what our astrophysicists have been observing (one which does NOT require hypothesizing violations of the presently known laws of physics) is that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. If so, then

1) It appears to me that so-called “dark matter” (estimated by Cosmologist Risa Wechsler to be 85% of the universe) is simply comprised of:

b) Probably trillions of stars and galaxies that we can’t see at this time, because sometime along the multi-billion-light-year stream of light coming from them toward our solar system got broken for a while (i.e. “eclipsed” for a million years or so (one-or-more times)) by other celestial objects that passed between them and our solar system since that light stream was originated. If we are in one of those gaps in that light stream, we may not be able to “see” the celestial object that created that stream of light, but we CAN observe the effects of its gravitational and electromagnetic forces. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) scheduled for launch in 2022 (which will use outer space “lens effects” to identify “large dark matter concentrations”) might be able to help us quantify how often this is happening and how much this is contributing to our “dark matter” calculations. It may also help to identify to what extent “burned out” celestial objects are contributing to our “dark matter” calculations.

c) This is an explanation that is simpler and makes far more sense than a Big Bang theorist hypothesis that such dark matter “has been lurking in the universe since the dawn of time” or that it may be “stuff that is passing through our finger nails, but we don’t notice it!” Both explanations were suggested in Ref #1

2) The concept of “dark energy” would likely no longer be needed, because (as I will explain below) the universe isn’t really expanding in general. However, it is possible that some of the celestial objects that we can already see are being pulled by the gravitational forces of other celestial objects that are so much further away that we can’t yet see them with our present technology.

3) The Ref #2 episode points out that spiral galaxies like our Milky Way spin in a manner unlike our solar system. It is obvious to me that this is because (unlike our solar system) the three-dimensional INTERLOCKING gravitational forces of the “dark matter” in those galaxies is holding it all together just as the flexible silk threads woven into a scarf can hold things together in a fairly consistent shape.

4) The reason that there are so many “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy is because according to the Ref #1 episode, “red dwarf” stars can “last a trillion years.” It is estimated that as many as three fourths of the presently observable stars in our Milky Way are “red dwarf” stars, so it is likely that most of “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy are FAR older than a mere 13.8 billion years. Perhaps because I have always been highly skeptical about the validity of the Big Bang Theory, it appears to me that our Milky Way Galaxy is at least one order of magnitude OLDER than 13.8 billion years. If you view our Milky Way galaxy this way, you will find that ALL of the phenomena that our astrophysicists have been observing about our Milky Way galaxy make FAR MORE SENSE than if one views the Milky Way galaxy in the context of the Big Bang Theory (which leaves so many perceptual puzzles unanswered).

5) According to the Ref #2 episode, astrophysicists have discovered an ancient galaxy which they call “Dragon 44” that is as massive as our Milky Way galaxy, but it emits very little light. This appears to me to be an example of an almost completely burned out galaxy with perhaps only few (trillion-year-old?) “red dwarf” stars remaining. So it appears to me that the Dragon 44 galaxy could be over a trillion years old! In any case, the existence of the Dragon 44 galaxy is another pretty much irrefutable PROOF that the Big Bang Theory is invalid.

6) The speed of light is a ratio (186,000 miles/second = space/time) which is generally assumed to be constant (except by some Big Bang theorists who have hypothesized exceptions to the 186,000 miles/second speed limit in order to explain why their physical observations don’t “add up” to fit within the 16.8 billion-year timeframe of the Big Bang Theory). Anyhow, the idea that the speed of light (within a vacuum) is constant in Einstein’s E=m(c squared) equation is that if an object is traveling at less than the vacuum “speed of light”, then it must acquire at least some of the properties of matter. Indeed, astrophysicists have observed that visible light rays really do “bend” when passing a massively heavy object like a black hole. This means that visible light rays (like matter) REALLY ARE affected by the force of gravity. Furthermore, observations that the visible displays of supernovas are briefly preceded with neutrino waves indicate that those neutrino waves are traveling through space at a slightly higher speed than visible light rays (because neutrinos aren’t affected by electromagnetic forces).

a) In the first half of the Ref #1 episode, the narrator says “The Big Bang kick started the expansion of the universe. Since that moment, space itself is stretching further and further apart.” This statement was followed by a statement by Astrophysicist Amber Straughn that “the light from the universe is literally stretched.” She goes on to explain that “light from so far away objects has been stretched for so long that the light has become redder than the eye can see and has been shifted all the way to infrared.” Those observations by Amber and the narrator are correct, but their explanations for why that is happening are evidently wrong. It appears to me that it would be FAR more realistic (and simpler) to assume that the light rays that we are observing from OldestStarSoFar have been slowed down by the cumulative forces of gravity and electromagnetic fields encountered while passing through a “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” which are far from being “perfect vacuums”, because they contain light rays from all over the observable universe as well as (in many cases) weak gravitational and electromagnetic forces, neutrino and gamma waves, space debris, hydrogen atoms, etc. Also keep in mind that during the 13.6 billion year trip which the light rays from OldestStarSoFar traveled to reach us, many types of celestial objects may have passed by NEAR the path of those light rays thereby increasing their influence on those light rays. So each cubic meter of “outer space” exerts a weak “prism effect” on light rays that pass through it, and the cumulative effect when passing through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” can be significant.

b) So the “red tint effect in all directions” which our Big Bang theorists have claimed is proof that the universe is “expanding in all directions” can be more simply (and I believe more accurately) explained as being this gravitational “prism effect” that “gazillions” cubic meters of “outer space” cumulatively have on the light that is passing through all of them. This criticism also applies to Professor Saul Perlmutter’s conclusion that the universe is “expanding at an accelerating rate”, because he apparently assumed that the speed of light remains constant as it travels through “outer space”, but for the reasons described above, the speed of light actually slows down a bit as it travels through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space.” If our scientists have light sensors that are sensitive enough, they might be able to create outer space cubic-meter simulators that will measure to what degree exterior gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, neutrino waves, gamma rays and light rays from all directions, hydrogen atoms, space debris, etc. have on precisely measured light rays passing through various examples of near-perfect-vacuum cubic-meter containers.

c) It is important to note at this point that the slowing-down-effect that a stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” has on light rays ALSO slows down everything else that is passing through that stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” (although perhaps not at the same rate). This includes radio/microwaves, electromagnetic waves, neutrino waves, “gravitational waves”, etc. That stream might even “slow down time itself”, although that might just be a perspective illusion.

d) Furthermore, if our universe is “expanding in all directions” as our Big Bang theorists claim to be happening, then how come we’ve seen so many photographs of different galaxies colliding with each other! That couldn’t happen if that claim was true. Furthermore, astrophysicists are also claiming that our own Milky Way galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. This was my first observation that convinced me (decades ago) that the Big Bang Theory cannot possibly be valid.

7) Also, the Big Bang theorists’ claim that the radio/microwaves from all directions that show up on our TV screens when we select a non-existent channel are “echoes of the Big Bang.” This explanation is dubious, because this observable phenomenon can be more simply explained as being merely jumbled up radio/microwaves from celestial sources that are too far away to be distinctly identified by our present radio/microwave telescopes. It’s kind of like the overlapping broadcasts you hear as you “lose your channel” while driving beyond the effective range of the radio station that your car radio was tuned to. Besides, if they were really “echoes of the Big Bang”, they would have passed by us by now, rather than apparently “continuing forever” as shown in the “cosmic microwave background chart” that supposedly goes back to 400,000 years after the Big Bang. If the “echoes of the Big Bang” theory were true, then it appears to me that by now our radio/microwave (direction finding) telescope projects would have been able to determine the spot in our universe where those radio/microwaves originated, and they would be able to distinguish between original radio/microwaves and echoed radio/microwaves.

8) The Ref #2 episode also shows that astrophysicists have discovered “super massive black holes” that are 13 billion years old. If the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, then how can “super massive black holes” form during the 800,000 years since the Big Bang? To try and explain this, Big Bang theorists have invented a hypothesis that the first stars must have been “super massive blue hydrogen stars” (no such stars can presently been observed) which grew fast and then blew up as “hyper-novas” in a “few million years.” This still didn’t credibly explain how super-massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. Later on, they hypothesized that perhaps some of those super massive blue hydrogen stars simply “collapsed directly into a black hole”(which may violate our presently known laws of physics) “and then gobbled up other black holes”, but even that doesn’t satisfactorily explain how super massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. It takes a lot of time for a black hole to “gobble up” another black hole (without exploding), because they tend to spin around each other for quite a while as they approach each other. Our Big Bang theorists seem to be “scrambling around” to dream up hypotheses that violate the known laws of physics in order to explain what they have been observing in a way that conforms to the Big Bang Theory! This itself is symptomatic of a popular theory on the verge of collapse! I figure it will just be a matter of time before improvements in our technology will begin to reveal (directly) that there are MANY celestial objects in “outer space” that are far older (and/or farther away) than 13.8 billion years.

9) The second hour of the Ref #1 episode describes how the Hubble telescope was programmed to observe a specific point the universe for 100 hours (it required 650 orbits) in order to identify the oldest galaxies that the Hubble telescope could see. The last photo (farthest photo) showed that there were LOTS of galaxies in that particular tiny portion of the universe over 13 billion years ago. How can we reasonably assume that so many galaxies could have formed in that very tiny portion of the universe in less than 800,000 years after the Big Bang?

10) Astronomer Michelle Thaller says that “Initially, the universe was unimaginably hot and dense, so much so that our laws of physics don’t apply.” This appears to me to be an example of carrying an invalid mathematical model to a ridiculous extreme. Theories that violate our presently known laws of physics should be viewed as a potential “red flag” as far as validity is concerned. The same can be said regarding the narrator’s comment that “’Inflation’ is science’s best explanation for how our cosmos formed. The entire universe would begin stuffed into an infinitesimally small space and expand faster than the speed of light.”

3. In the Ref #1 episode, Cosmologist Risa Wechsler explained that she was using a supercomputer to test mathematical models of the “creation of the universe since the Big Bang” and to “trace the evolution of the universe back to the Big Bang.” This is what convinced me to write and “publish” this new rebuttal of the Big Bang Theory, because it appears that our scientists aren’t even bothering to test the validity of the Big Bang Theory itself. It is, after all, just a theory (i.e. an hypothesis). She should ALSO be testing mathematical models of the universe based on the assumptions that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. Since the term “infinitely” is a concept rather than a number, I suggest that she use the largest number that her supercomputer can store as a number to simulate infinity.

4. Two widely accepted “pillars of the scientific method” are:

1) Karl Popper’s “empirical falsification” technique that is “ if you can find an exception to an hypothesis, then that hypothesis is invalid” and

2) The “Law of Parsimony” principle (a.k.a “Occam’s razor”) that is that “the simplest hypothesis (i. e. the hypothesis that has the least number of assumptions) for accurately explaining what is physically observed is the best hypothesis.

5. So it appears to me that many of our astrophysicists have NOT been following those two basic principles of the scientific method. Essentially, what I am asking them to do is to FOLLOW those two fundamental principles of the scientific method!

CONCLUSIONS: Our astrophysicists have been so enamored with the Big Bang Theory that they are no longer asking the right questions. This is a violation of the scientific method!
RECOMMENDATION: Our astrophysicists should also be questioning the Big Bang Theory itself. Please forward copies of this document to scientists and scientific organizations who SHOULD be concerned about this.
Thanks,

Feel free to publish the above (and the post script which follows) or to use these points in your own articles

PS: Last night (21 May 18), a 2-hour episode of Space’s Deepest Secrets titled “Secrets of Alien Universes” aired which included the following observations:

1) The first hour describes an interesting discussion of the issues involved in attempts to create a “time travel machine.” Among other things, it points out that the forces through which a vehicle travels while orbiting the earth (at a very high speed) actually slows down the clocks that are in those vehicles. In order to remain accurate, our GPS satellites have to apply a “fudge factor” in their computations to offset this predictable phenomenon.

2) The second hour discusses various efforts to apply “quantum mechanics” equations to celestial objects and the universe. To begin with, it is important to realize that quantum mechanics is essentially a statistical approach (as far as measuring goes) for describing the universe. For example, for the sake of measurement and mathematical manipulations, light rays are parsed into digital “photons” which has proven to be a useful technique for many practical purposes. However, it appears to me that the quantum-mechanics-based claims that tiny objects can “exist it two places at the same time” merely means that the slices of time during which those measurements were taken were NOT small enough and/or coordinated enough to uniquely isolate such tiny, rapidly moving wave-parsed “particles” (i.e. the “shutter speed” wasn’t quick enough). Or perhaps the techniques used for identifying such particles weren’t fine enough to uniquely identify such particles as being the same wave-parsed “particle” in each case. In other words, it appears to me that the results that they are getting are sometimes more a function of the method that they have chosen parse waves rather than actually identifying “the same object in two places at the same time.”

3) Anyhow, in the second hour the cosmologist Prof. Mac Tegmark of MIT says the “We don’t have a shred of evidence that the universe ends here” (beyond what we can see). That’s great! But then the narrator explains that Max believes that there is an infinite number of “other” universes “each containing the same finite number of atoms.” WOW! He gets it right, but then falls back to putting his faith in the Big Bang Theory. Then the rest of the second hour describes a variety of different theories as to what the characteristics of such a “multiverse” would be. This appears to me to be examples of carrying the mathematical equations of Quantum Theory to a ridiculous extreme.
ccc

PS2: As far as I know, our scientists have NOT been able to credibly demonstrate that ANYTHING can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. So the “inflation theory” excuse (that our universe initially expanded many times faster than the speed of light) dreamed up by Big Bang theorists to explain away the proof that the Big Bang Theory is invalid (i.e. paragraph 1 in the article above) is no more valid than a claim that “A fairy godmother did it with her magic wand.” The failure of our scientific community to insist that Big Bang theorists stick to the scientific method is DISGRACEFUL!

"it had an incredibly low content of iron and a little bit of carbon which shows that it is at least a second generation star (created from the debris of at least one supernova before it formed)"

This is not true. Only elements larger than Iron require a supernova to be made. Now if he had discovered Cobalt in this star, that would be something interesting.

Believe it or not, scientists, for the most part, are not idiots that blindly follow the general consensus. In fact, one of the greatest accomplishments that a scientist can achieve is to disprove a long-standing scientific theory. That's how you get Nobel prizes and all that good stuff. I am excited that you watched a couple of documentaries and got fired up about cosmology, but I think your going about it the wrong way. Why not go back to school and focus some of that energy on earning a degree in physics? Maybe even go on to grad school and study astrophysics? We could use a lot more people working on these types of problems.

RHODESY
- 09/01/2018 at 16:01

Truth is the physical universe, time, diamensions, space, matter, conciousness, energy, life may not even exist.
Your only thought is right now. This singularity, this moment
This everlasting infinite blip in the void.
There is not one shred of absolute indisputable evidence that there is/was or will be a past, present or future. No evidence of time or matter or light or love, reality or thoughts, feelings or energy.
There's only your belief that, this one single defining moment is real & you have lived a whole lifetime, that everything infinitely around you is not imagined
Who knows?
Prove me wrong?
do i have to try and prove myself wrong because this is my singularity?

Ace Nowlage
- 04/12/2018 at 03:44

Please have a seat and listen to something very important concerning anyone truly desiring true facts leading the way to fully understanding what your universe is all about. It is very helpful to learn all the theories out there because it builds a foundation for you to compare actual truth from what is false. After you've heard all there is available you may take what I'm about to tell you and understand why it eludes satisfying you. I tell you now, that all that is observed is taken for granted that it is about matter in motion. Science is about observation and verification. What is missed is three essential facts when observing and collecting and analyzing. One, TIME is solely a concept not a thing. Two, all observed matter is not moving. Third, I am hesitant, and so then refuse, to reveal it here. Like it or not, and you probably don't like it, one and two are accurate facts. I feel a little pity for mainstreams' headlong rush into chasing after things that aren't really moving all the time believing and basing theories on the illusion that they are. I think it fits to say that what is seen is the trees but not the forest, but more honestly they see what they see but not what is unseen. The Third important fact would be very hard to swallow so I prefer to spare it. Your goal is to figure out what and why everything is, right? It can be accomplished but not by thinking like everyone else. I've been to the edge of our universe in a dream and this is because I knew not science would give me the right answers but only the universe talking to me directly holds the truth. I found answers there that maybe you can find if you go there too. Best of luck to you all and I leave you with a last clue, which is that it is what you aren't seeing (where you aren't looking), that is what is moving, meaning that what everyone is observing is virtual, an illusion of sorts yet certainly real. It's all quite real, yes. Think about it. Keep asking how/why the smallest of a so believed particle of matter can move, or in other words change it's position. In fact it doesn't because it can't. Ask yourself why it actually APPEARS to move! :)(: Pi * Y = infinity, solve for Y then you will touch the end of the universe then turn to look back fully understanding. The largest number I know is 1, yet I know that one can not exist without another one, so 1 + 1 = 2, but the 2 is itself a 1, and lastly, everything is a smaller division or fraction of the 2 that is 1.

I think you'll find the two things in the universe: the so-called 'dark matter' and dark energy. But since consciousness is the ground of all being all matter is a false analogy, I think you'll then find that the universe is an irregular cone, the curvature of space unknown, and things revolving around the planets by a gravitational pull. Further explanation is in the argument of Plato, who says: all the planets and fixed stars revolve around the Earth, as a beam of light goes through heaven and earth like a pillar, and the Spindle of Necessity is the earth's axis. Any denying of all this learning isn't understanding subjective facts.

There is a discovery made within the last 8 month science nicknamed it camel signal was on phys.org probably from November 2017 to February 2018 but I can’t find it ! The article stated that they discovered a false signal when squeezing a small wire between two big wire ! (Hence why I be been telling people to air gap and ground at a frequent distance ! My question is how big doesn’t that false signal become at the sun atomic level!sadly ? It sounded very hard to detect. At our level so at sub atomic level ?impossible

Farhan
- 09/29/2017 at 21:42

Evolution is not true. Men didn't evolve from apes. Proof is right here!!!! This DNA like looooong comment (basically putting blame, personal ego sorta things)

The Big Bang creates everything out of nothing. Since this is impossible, all that follows is nonsense. the fact is there is no proof to support any of these conjectures.

Let us leave these dreams behind and spend some time investigating the Electric Universe. perhaps there we could find some factual data to help us understand how at least part of this works.
try: thunderbolts.info

What we call "universe" is nothing but a local cluster of galactic superclusters in an infinite and eternal Cosmos, which is "all that is or ever was or ever will be" as my favorite cosmologist Carl Sagan had put it. I see the much neglected Plasma cosmology as a much more sensible model than the Big Bang theory and its innumerable twists and modifications. The old principle says it all: ex nihilo nihil fit - nothing comes nor has ever come from nothing.

UNIVERSE means the encompassing principle of EVERYTHING in existence. THEREFORE the idea of more than ONE universe is nonsense at best. How can there be another everything, if everything already counts everything. No matter what we diiscover today or tomorrow, its part of existence, which is part of the whole. No such thing as other universes, unless ur definition of universe isnt the definition that exists ;-)

According to THE DICTIONARY:
The UNIVERSE is: the WHOLE BODY of things and phenomena OBSERVED OR POSTULATED. This in lamen's terms means, EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, SEEN, UNSEEN, OR THOUGHT ABOUT. This definition indeed encompasses EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS.
So, im in REALITY, SO CORRECT U HAVE NOTHING TO ARGUE ;-)

Dont get mad, get smart n prove me wrong ;-)

AtlasRedux
- 08/29/2013 at 18:19

"THE universe" is a completely different thing from "universe."
If you meant "THE universe", why the hell didn't you say so?

Sean Lee Walthour
- 08/29/2013 at 18:25

Okay i can play dumb if u can lol.. we'll just pretend like there's a difference so u can save face.. next time u say somebody is wrong, plz provide proof.. u must be a child. ADULTS apologize when they are mistaken.. i guess if i say THE cat in your bedroom window, it doesnt fit the definition for CAT... cfuuuu

AtlasRedux
- 08/29/2013 at 18:36

Within the multiverse, there's is a possibilty of any universe.
The universe is accepted as a fact, with some few ignoring the maths and going on pure belief. Pretty much the same people saying God made all and humans are the only life on in our universe.
So, let's go.
Our universe is one of extremely many. Actually infinite. Fact is, infinity is not infinite as we know it. It just mean 'every single possibility possible!'.
Meaning : everything that could ever happen in any universe will happen.
OUR Universe is one of those possibilities. As we know, we are just of many.
So many in fact, there are more universes than particles in our universe, Actually, that's not even close.
Also, welcome to physics. You will have a good time. I suggest you actually study it before you start debating it.
If some is unclear, I apologize, I am Norwegian.

Sean Lee Walthour
- 08/29/2013 at 19:18

THIS WILL BE MY FINAL REPLY ...
YOU are either mentally uncapable of comprehending me, or a troll..
Let me diffuse you point by point, since u are responding to ME, not OTHER PEOPLE...
first, there is no WITHIN a MULTIVERSE because the DEFINITION OF UNIVERSE already covers it.. I.E. ANYTHING OBSERVED OR POSTULATED. that SIMPLE PRINCIPLE is SAYING: Anything found to exist in any manner, is PART of a WHOLE. there is no OUR universe, to imply that is to DENY THE PRINCIPLE oc what universe means itself. Your argument is SELF REFUTING. However, i guess YOU are saying the dictionaries are all wrong too, all the scientists who confirm this are wrong too.. ONLY YOU HAVE THE TRUE DEFINITION.. imagine that.. Far as PHYSICS is concerned, the universe is the totality of EVERYTHING THAT PHYSICALLY EXISTS.. agrees with the dictionaries as well... you have trouble discerning the difference between the SOLAR SYSTEM, the OBSERVABLE universe and the universe ITSELF..
Now when u debate a person, u debate THEIR argument, not OTHER PEOPLE'S. that was ur biggest mistake.. as follows..

U say the universe is accepted as FACT but u DENY THAT FACT.. strike one (can u provide evidence why physics, dictionaries,etc
Contradict ur claims?)
Further, u imply im dealing with BELIEF and bring up the God argument, which is a Strawman argument, in reality to mine.
I will agree that there are infinite possible solar systems,etc but, they all fall under the umbrella of ONE UNIVERSE. Your semantics are cute, you contradict yourself consistently, but i can play doublespeak too.. U didnt disprove your own theory, u simply proved mine... is that Norwegian enough for ya?

AtlasRedux
- 08/29/2013 at 19:51

You are very rude.
"is that Norwegian enough for ya?"
Why would you say that.
You also understand clearly and just is nitpicking on my wording due to my bad grammar.
You know as well as me "THE universe" we live in is considered only a minor part of what is truly reality.
If you're going to argue against that, I will not discuss with you anymore.
It will be like you saying "GOD EXISTS" whilst me saying "GRAVITY EXISTS".
We can both experience gravity. No one can directly experience God.
In the same way we see the other universes affect us. We never see God affect us.

jaberwokky
- 10/09/2013 at 01:26

Unfortunately most people in our "reality" have not got their head around the notion that the "world" as we know it was conceived before we had a clear definition of what a "Universe" was. You've been arguing with a narrow mind, you were never going to win :-(

Sean Lee Walthour
- 11/01/2013 at 05:46

A narrow mind is one that cant grasp that an eternal world cannot be concieved of... IM not the narrow minded one lol

jaberwokky
- 11/01/2013 at 22:36

You are very hung up on semantics for some reason. You seem smart enough but I don't understand what your hangup is so I'll not comment anymore.

Also are you confusing infinite and eternal? Just a thought.

Kieron Dyer
- 11/29/2013 at 19:15

Firstly I think you have too strong an allegence to concrete definitions from dictionaries. Even if you equate "universe = everything" you will find that when considering infinite sets not everything is smooth sailing. The dictionary definition aside, the definition of the word "universe" is only limited to the degree in which the universe is understood. So in order to give a complete definition with a concept of quanitity and divison that seems to have you hung up it requires a more complete understanding(which may or may not be possible at this stage). I disagree with the way you are limiting the discussion simply because this fuzzy concept that we refer to as the "universe" is defined in a simple slightly less meaningful way in a dictionary. You are missing the idea that some words are too weighted to be limited to a paragraph in a dictionary and you shouldn't take that paragraph in dictionary defining the word "universe" as the beginning and end of truth. Take for example the word "mathematics", do you think the definiton in the dictionary has any value to a mathematician or someone that actually knows something about the field? of course not. In the same way a cosmologist would find your universe definition useless. Some concepts require more thought and introspection. You need to get your head out of the dictionary and do some thinking of your own.

Tobias MacRobie
- 11/01/2013 at 03:54

Just a note on word derivatives. Uni - singular. Mono - single. So universe is a singular form, monoverse would be a single example of a.. verse. monoverse is what you mean, as part of a multiverse. Which also suggests a possibility of polyverses, in among what is a universe.

In those god terms, the christian / muslim god is like a unigod. a monoverse would be a deity in among a polytheistic religion. A multitheist would have multiple beliefs, be they several monotheistic vies, or many polytheistic. So, in those terms, a unigod precludes dissection, as it is assumed to be the be all and end all. The beginning and the end. The light and the dark, etc etc..

which is silly to try to itemize infinity.. it doesn't exist, neither does zero. things just appear to approach some sense of those notions, such as "it appears to go to infinity", or there appears to be nothing there.. but we all know this is not the same as actually being infinite or nothing, and because nothing is in itself something, the two cannot exist with one another as they only exist as conditions of each other, which are the same thing.. related only by the appearance, the approach, the like-ness.

In conclusion, I am more prepared to believe in a range of limited -something-verses, as opposed to belief in any -uni-verse. What can I say? I like details.

Sean Lee Walthour
- 11/01/2013 at 05:44

Just a note on FACTS. Both SINGULAR and MONO mean ONE, plz use semantics on the less intelligent. UNI ALSO means ONE. Please explain why YOUR definition goes against the actual ones that exist? Making it up as u go along i see lol.. now, pseudosciencd aside (mono/multiverses do NOT exist), i would love to hear/read a VALID argument against my own. universe by definition is :EVERYTHING that EXISTS, whether OBSERVABLE OR PONDERED. your argument is laughable at best. Furthermore, a person who holds "multiple" beliefs abouf the SAME concept is suffering from cognitive dissonance, its not a rational thought process to believe you can be awake and sleep at the same time (for example). Next, as i said monoverse is fake science talk, if YOU wanna believe in fairies,etc. Fine, but dont tell. me WHAT I MEAN. thats YOUR silly notion. Plus, a question, if God is Eternal, HOW can he be a beginning or ending? Again this idea is a contradiction of said beings' terms, just as everything that exists, ALREADY includes whatever can be found or thought up ;-). In conclusion, philosophically speakin and logically speaking, ur feet are severely uneven. ZERO DOES EXIST. it represents a principle denoting a negative amount. An empty frige is ZERO food, just as a steak in it is ONE meal. All that talkin and barely a coherent stance. Smh. This is how i see it: the universe is a pack of cookies, the details are each cookie. There still only ONE pack. Btw, WHY do u want to BELIEVE in things, when KNOWING is much more beneficial than doubt? #Shalom..

P.s. plz NEVER say something as stupid as "nothing IS something.. non existance is not existance, otherwise id take a million dollars i dont have and buy a mansion with it lol

Tobias MacRobie
- 11/01/2013 at 07:04

"ZERO DOES EXIST. it represents a principle denoting a negative amount."

That kind of logic is what landed you on this island in the first place. Lol

I understand your points, I have alternative views. No bigs, I was just trying to connect the rationale between uni and mono.

Uni - isn't one thing, it is the "whole thing", in regards to 1 being 100 percent, an entire unit.

Mono- can be a sub state. mono-percentile, 1%. baby steps bro, and maybe a few less caps. Your fridge appears to be empty, but it is not nothing inside, there is a space. Space is nothing? Air is nothing? Nothing is apparent, not real. Likewise, can you open the fridge to find eternity? Let's chat, you and me. =)

GeorgDec
- 12/05/2012 at 23:49

I thought the standard model was like Gisele Bundchen.
Now that's ininite curves over compact field interactions.

Our knowledge is limited by our instruments... e.g not long ago everyone knew that the smallest particles were "Quarks" till someone made a particle accelerator now i think thy have something called a starndar model even though those particles dont behaive like anything thy know... and long before that everyone knew the world was flat... n technologly advanced and it was proven wrong...

and now we know the world is round....but will any information in the future show us that the world is not round?

just because we were wrong sometimes in the past and discovered something new, doesnt mean that everything we know now is also going to be shown false.

Ndumiso Muntubantu Madlala
- 08/13/2012 at 16:50

... ok u have a good point

gravity_is_simple
- 06/25/2012 at 20:02

Dark matter does not exist....Once these so called scientists/physicists work out how gravity works, the answer will be apparent..The trouble is..Once they do work out how gravity works, their funding will be cut...So, in short, they'll keep inventing such things as dark matter and they'll continue to 'look' for non-existant things such as the Higgs because that ensures them of a payday for eternity!

Wow, really? You cant be that stupid can you? Gravity is not well understood, true, yet it is not simple as your moniker suggests. Newton and Einstein gave us modern gravity theories that have held true for many a decade. If you have a theory then share it. Dark matter and energy is a construct used to describe how little we know of the 97% of the universe that is unaccounted for. Its a name given to the unknown, not to be taken literally, but as an abstract construct, and let me assure you its not some funding or economic conspiracy.

chrisjt0
- 07/15/2012 at 05:05

That is a completely misinformed and false statement of a conspiracy theory that is simply not true. Most scientists are not interested in money, they're interested in knowing, learning. Scientists are not well paid, that funding is poured into expensive and sensitive instrumentation that helps this pursuit of knowledge, not to buy a Mercedes and a house in Malibu. We know how gravity works, it is a phenomenon of the effect of mass in spacetime. "Dark" energy and matter simply refers to the fact that it is unseen, it does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and thus is difficult to observe and detect. Furthermore, once scientists unify quantum theory with relativity, gravity will be fully understood but funding will not be cut, it will be applied to a new problem. You clearly have very little understanding of scientific funding especially in the realm of physics, as well as a severe lack of understanding of the current theories that very clearly explain that which you think do not exist. God damnit ignorance is frustrating.

chrisjt0
- 07/15/2012 at 05:11

I forgot to mention, look into gravitational lensing, it is all but absolute proof of dark matter's existence, and is a wonderful tool for allowing our telescopes to be able to view objects in the universe that would otherwise be too far away to observe. The presence of a cluster of dark matter creates a "pit" in space that essentially has the effect of a magnifying lens. Good day, sir.

anonymoose.
- 10/23/2013 at 14:39

Gravitational lensing proves that light can be affected by gravity. Therefore light can be accelerated or decelerated by gravity, or some other unknown force.The upshot of this is that the speed of light cannot be considered as a "constant" any more. I am sure I don't need to explain what that means.
And it is more likely that a electrically charged area of space would cause lensing than "dark matter".

f--kinhell
- 04/29/2012 at 02:31

Alsy,.Cerebral thats me! Heard of an hoover?thats just what it is, the furthermost of the universe is being sucked into a megamassive black hole and all the rest of the universe, including our galaxy, is going the same way.Mans perception is still that of a child.We have more growing up to do.The more we perceive over the next million years the more we`ll know as fact.Creation?Evolution?I sit on the fence and wouldn`t be so foolish as to discount one or the other or the other or the other or the other.........

No, faith in God Almighty is the answer. Science has proven about 75 to 80% of what God Almighty has mentioned in all non-fabricated religious scriptures to be true. The rest, well Science hasn't advanced yet. So watch this space!

I will watch this space alright! "Science has proven about 75 to 80% of what God Almighty has mentioned in all non-fabricated religious scriptures to be true"??

"Non-fabricated religious scriptures"?? there are no non-fabricated religious scriptures, all written by man.

It seems you have some talking to do to prove your allegations, if you so much as put any type of circular logic, "as the bible told me so to advance your allegations you have lost even before you start!

Good luck!

Seek_Knowledge
- 05/08/2012 at 05:38

My friend, I have not lost, as this is not some form of a competition. It is evident that you have not understood what I have written, so my advice is READ (as in understand) and to THINK (as in to analyse, synthesise and exaggerate) before you act. To tell you the truth, there is no right or wrong answer as this is based on my opinion. However, I do accept that an opinion should be based on facts and not to form an opinion based on here say. I base my opinion on research, logical and lateral thinking. Remember, Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) says, "Seeketh the truth and the truth shall set you free." You state your bible told you to advance my allegations? Well if you truly belive in the bible to be of God's word, then you believe it to be non-fabricated scriptures as it does contain teachings of Prophet Moses and Jesus (PBUT). Which is contradictory on your allegation that there are no non-fabricated religious scriptures. Infact, and please do not take this as offensive and apologise in advance if it has, but you are only basing this on your ignorant knowledge. Stating something without actual studies or research results in your response to be fallible. Furthermore, I would like to ask which version of the bible you follow? There are many versions which each contradict each other. As there are over 50 Christian Denominations, it's quite difficult to pin-point which is the accurate. I'm afraid all bible has been fabricated in more ways than one. When I mention about non-fabricated scriptures, I'm only referring to the messages sent from God Almight directly to the Prophets/Messengers or via Angel Gabriel. The message sent from Adam (PBUH) to the last and final prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has always remained unchanged. This message was of Monotheism and of course...of peace. Now this is not really a religious debate as the topic is "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?", however, if any religious scriptures is being attacked or been misunderstood, then it is my duty, as a believer in One Universal God to eradicate any misconceptions, like this particular response. Now let's take a step back, put our feets up and enjoy a nice cup of Tetly's! Peace! :)

Sean Lee Walthour
- 08/29/2013 at 18:17

Spare me lol, YAHWEH says ALL SEED BEARING FRUITS are EDIBLE (GENESIS 1:29), SCIENCE says IVY,OAK,ETC. are POISON. UR GOD'S a LIAR, he even says so Himself (Ezekiel14:9) .... there was a bigbang, its called the birth of our solar system

To what side of the coin are you granting such kind words? Do you stand in the middle?
az

Tristan Smith
- 09/15/2012 at 08:09

u sound intelligent i know it pisses me off when people ask stupid ?'s good luck in your work :]

bignoodle
- 03/02/2012 at 00:00

And why does the average joe seem to think that he has the answer, when clearly there isn't one? Big bang - really? For crying out loud, have they ever thought that maybe there might actually be some questions they and even scientists can't answer? That seems to be the more logical explanation. This is propaganda, just like landing on the moon etc. Garbage, don't be fooled, not everything has the answer that modern science can discover just yet.

.....science knows there are many things it cant answer just yet. we know the universe is expanding and we know there is a background radiation that is uniform, these lead one to deduce that the universe was once a dense small state and has since expanded. we dont know why it happened or what was going on before it happened. science admits that.

bignoodle
- 03/01/2012 at 23:53

Really? %96 of our universe is missing? How do they know it is actually %96 if it's not there? What do they compare the known quantity against to find out the percentage if the remainder is unaccounted for? For crying out loud people, WAKE UP. It's just idiots that make stuff up in order to get exposure as they feel their work is unappreciated. They're sort of trying to justify their own existence. Nuff said.

Science isn't a tabloid. The statement "It's just idiots that make stuff up in order to get exposure as they feel their work is unappreciated" doesn't consider the extremely thorough and critical peer review process. Science is quite brutally insincere. There is no benefit of the doubt, or sparing of feelings. Anything that has become a piece of current scientific understanding has gone through rigorous testing.

An individual or team of scientists can submit their hypothesis for review, but if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny it is never adopted. Radical breakthroughs in scientific understanding actually happen quite slowly because they must accumulate enough evidence to be considered valid. Science doesn't wantonly accept all hypothesis until it can prove them false. It rejects all hypothesis until they have amassed enough evidence.

bignoodle
- 05/30/2012 at 00:00

As you refer to the " critical peer review process ", did you ever consider that it may be human nature to compete, hence any scientist that is on this review committee / panel, may see the applicant's hypothesis as a threat and reject based on some trivial findings or redundant questions that haven't been answered? Similar to the " tall poppy " syndrome. If yo're happy believing everything " scientists " tell you, good luck with that. But have you ever asked yourself, " I wonder how many of these scientists believe in God or any other religion ? " I have, and the answer is to be as expected. The vast majority of those that were involved in the survey actually believed in something that is not proven. Are you asking any internal questions yet? Lol.

brianrose87
- 05/30/2012 at 03:03

Its easy to demonize hypothetical entities you've never met, but in Universities around the globe real people do real work trying to genuinely uncover what the nature of reality is.

Do all humans have biases? Yes. Thats what the peer review process is for. It checks the ego, or desire for vendetta by putting evidence on review for experts (not expert) to scrutinize. When a paper is published it is reviewed by an even larger, global scientific community.

Modern scientific research is so thoroughly scrutinized that you'd quite frankly be surprised. Are certain theories held back due to bias and in defense of "current" understanding? Yes. For example, the idea of tectonic plates was proposed and flatly rejected for some time, but that's the beauty of science. The fickle nature of humans is inevitably trumped by truth because of the way that the scientific method works.

Honey Razwell
- 08/21/2013 at 15:30

What "method"? Scientists use THOUSANDS of METHODS, you FOOL.

Ndumiso Muntubantu Madlala
- 08/06/2012 at 13:09

lol well put... i mean how do they know its EXactl 96%... u cant knw something you do not know...

john kay
- 01/02/2012 at 11:51

hi, my 2 cents on the big bang( just an average joe ):
1. i agree with the notion that OUR universe started with this theory
2. i do not agree that there wasnt anything (time, space, universe...) prior to it - for there to be a big bang / explosion then something needed to explode, and i have heared some theories of parallel dimensions? ...already existing...but havent really checked those out yet but I understand the concept

So, I was thinking, how can there be a big bang occur but without anything existing prior to it ?

Heres what I came up with:

I forgot what you call a star/planet that explodes (supernova?) but imagine the biggest event like that creating OUR universe as we know it.

So just as we have a universe with these billions of entities in it and supernovas occuring within it(that create whatever they create in their aftermaths of explosions)

Picture ANOTHER LARGER universe with billions of things in it and lets say one of those things explode "supernova/big bang" and from that event OUR universe is created (hence the big bang) and we just cant see or are unaware of our parent universe yet (meaning things existed prior to big bang) we just see/aware of within our explosion's domain

By all means post again, nothing wrong with using your brain and "thinking". But there is much more to what you have posted, see the docs under science on TDF to give you a better picture of the universe.

john kay
- 01/07/2012 at 09:52

ty sir/maam on my way there now. im getting really hooked on this site now and like to mix up topics...unfortuneatly some really interesting educational vids (ix. science) which i luv learning btw, make me fall asleep hard and fast lol. cant say the same regarding universe vids...except for carl's the cosmo just instant zzzzz for some reason. cheers

John Bartholamule
- 12/10/2011 at 18:37

Why dont they remove the link if it does not work is my only questions...

At least their youtube snooping department. Three times, I've passed on a video section from Horizon uploaded to youtube (God on the Brain) and three times I find a few weeks or a month of passing on the video, it's blocked. The third time, only part 4 was blocked. Now that takes the whizz, but I'm glad they're getting lazy.

streetrockcity
- 09/23/2011 at 20:15

ok, try this, dark matter, dark energy and dark flow are all the same thing. they are all dark gravity. dark gravity is not caused by matter bending spacetime but by the motion of the multiverse. but this theory only works if my other theory on how stringtheory works using supersymmetry.

this ,,,theory is wrong.because of our location we as yet do not compensate for respiration .the grand universe has a procession ,as well as an expansion time ,then a pause before contracting ,this takes place about every 1 billion years

I will explain what we call "time" to you. Time is merely a system of measurement that we humans created to compare the intervals of bodies in motion. Without matter, or any changing reference point, time does not exist in a quantifiable way. Therefore, you are mistaken by thinking that time existed before anything else because time is merely a byproduct of an existence that must include space and matter.

agun
- 08/21/2011 at 16:21

You could also say space is merely a system of measurement that we humans created to compare the distances between bodies.

Time, like space, is a DIMENSION.

The UNIT used to measure time is manmade.

Humans can't create dimensions. Except for giving a whole new dimension to stupidity... but that's just a figure of speech.

Dustin Sheline
- 08/20/2011 at 00:30

I am obviously not certain about this, but I think it might be possible that the Universe has always existed. The "Big Bang" may have been the result of a collapse of one of the infinite universes before the universe we know today. Our problem as human beings begins with our inability to imagine anything not having a beginning or an end; however, the laws of conservation of matter and energy would seem to lend credence to a cycling universe that did not have a beginning. We can prove that the Big Bang actually took place, but we cannot measure before the event; we therefore assume that there was nothing before the singularity. All of the material in the singularity was enough to solidify our current universe; perhaps, the material could be recycled from a previous, unstable universe. Also, given the parameters of our finite brains, we may not be capable of wrapping our minds around the true nature of the Universe.

Why is it that a star can explode and have a chance at creating a black hole but the BIG BANG did nothing to the frabric of space. You cannot say there was no space at the time of the BIG BANG because there was.. This is why the big bang theory is wrong. The energy created would of blasted a hole into the fabric of space.

Its simple...there is NO god. Just infinite galaxies and universes with no beginning and no end! Beginning and the end of things is merly a perception. We live,we die. Therefor, we think that everything in the universes began and will end on our watch. However, thats not the case! Humans are morons! We think that were important or some imaginary space zombie is coming to save the day! That in itself is self-centered!

lol what you just said... is wayyyyy more far fetched then the bible..... congratz

Epicurus
- 06/19/2011 at 16:48

Kevin is probably wrong, but nothing is more far fetched than a rib woman being tricked by a talking snake into eating a magical fruit.

Guest
- 06/19/2011 at 17:50

@Epicurus
It depends what was really meant when it was suggested (we may never know)...of course in these days and ages it literally means "squat". LOL
az

Jami Baade
- 05/25/2011 at 04:12

As for the big bang theory, when was the last time there was an explosion on earth by itself, out of nowhere, with no one creating it or having a hand in it? Beside volcano eruptions, mother nature,etc. Someone with intelligence, put a bomb together with ingredients that we have to work with here on earth.

Science is really good at mathmatically proving that a ball was thrown, at this velocity, for this timeframe but does not and can not address who threw the ball in the first place.

Everyone with an intelligent mind can see that religion is flawed and is like a game of telephone played over thousands of years, but that does not at all disprove the existence of an intelligent design or creator. Different religions have different stories and different ways of paying homage to their creators just like language has dozens of ways to name the same thing, a table for example.

Even Einstein didn't doubt the existence of something more, and an intelligent design. With every design isn't there a designer? Maybe dark matter is spirit? If you are a thinking and feeling human being who believes that we evolved from a piece of lava or an amoeba billions of years ago - and that our complex strands of perfect DNA evolved by chance and the conditions on earth just happen to be perfect for human life at the perfect distance from the sun to survive... to me that is the craziest theory of them all!

I think the universe keeps expanding because we keep looking where we aren't supposed to look, and I suspect that the brightest minds on earth will never figure this one out until we are meant to.

kinda funny that you say "when was the last time there was an explosion on earth by itself" then besides mother nature lol. if you are going to exclude natural causes then you are right. planets have been known to explode by themselves same as suns and so on. anyway that has little or nothing to do with big bang. saying that it looks designed there must have been a designer is a argument without facts and science has shown that things can evolve naturally. next show me where science says we evolved from a piece of lava? perfect dna lol so you haven't heard of genetic diseases, mutations, vestigial organs ? nothing evolved by chance. show me where evolution theory says that? conditions on earth are perfect for human life? could you expand on that please?

Achems_Razor
- 05/25/2011 at 06:13

It is hard to decipher what it is you are trying to say. Explosions? nothing to do with the big bang, some schools of thought also say, no BB but a whimper. If in case you ever want to do some reading, Stephen Hawking, in his book "the grand design" tells of perfectly natural laws of how the universe came into existence from "absolutely nothing".

Game of telephone? explain! don't have a clue what that is.

Different religions at that time knew nothing about the science of today, they only gave their version from the bronze ages, and basically it is still circular logic from those times still etched in stone today.

Yes, Einstein did doubt the existence of ID especially of gods.

Conditions on Earth did not just happen to be perfect for life, humans/life evolved through evolution to adapt to the Earth as it is.

"Dark matter is spirit"?? no comment.

"I think the universe keeps expanding because we keep looking where we aren't supposed to look"?? that is nonsensical verbage!

psudohuman
- 06/07/2011 at 14:24

It sounds like you took no time to try and understand what was being expressed, but simply attacked the semantics.
Most religions and sciences share the same roots.
science is wonderful at saying how, but ignores the fact that the why is so elusive.
I believe jami was trying to express the uncertainty principle, and how relevant it is when asking these questions, but hey
if it doesn't intellectually appeal to us, its bulls***! right?

p.s. the rational mind is inherently flawed big guy, intelligence is using ALL of our faculties together, not for a perfect process but to bring it to a greater capacity for comprehension.

I find the hardheadedness of a purely rational dissection is dissociative, constrictive to what is dissected, and primitive. im not saying jami is right, just that i hear a tone of supiorority within your verbage.
try dialogue, or discourse! or you will simply be proving your theory to yourself, which is how stagnant dogmas within the scientific community bud, and progress is slowed to a snail trail of right/wrong.
again im not agreeing with jami, but Einstein doubted everything, including the nature of his own reality, which his lack of certainty about anything gave his mind the malleability to wrap itself around relativity, to look outside of his lenses and see that everything is a lens, including the universe. but my topic is communication, not right/wrong which changes as the context of the question changes.
but i digress, im a dick.
feel free to contact me lucidmemory@live.ca

keli138
- 04/19/2013 at 04:29

I thought this reply was one of the more interesting, relevant, and refreshingly neutral I've read for this doc so far. I was rather impressed by not only the open perspective (rarely found in a comment section), but I also found the gentle delivery to be pleasant, and the assisting of interpreting another posters intent admirable.

Very nice.

psudohuman
- 06/07/2011 at 13:56

well said! although i don't think we aren't supposed to look, it is just a self referencing system expanding itself.
the reason i believe this is because the only thing quantum mechanics has discovered that i feel has any relevance is the fact that the tool used for observation only measures its own place in space/ time (self reference) so we (as biological observers) are just expanding our understanding of ourselves by looking in increasingly smaller and larger events in space and time.

I feel frustrated that there is a lack of equilibrium between scientific exploration and sustaining what (and who) is here now, but i think that the trajectories will converge given enough time.

This is interesting conversation. Thanks for sharing everyone. I understand the point you're making Jami in that effects require cause and that if cause exists there must also exist intent and therefore intelligence at some point during the chain of events. I've had the same conclusions but in that line of thinking however I keep running into the same obstacle. Consider your example of religion as they compare to one another over time as evolving ideologies and interpretations of God. Are they really paying homage to God? I would argue that they are not. At their origin and still today religions assume that generally things happen because of intelligent influence. In other words we exist, and everything exists because God made or makes it so. The problem with that line of thinking for me is in the assumption that intelligent influence is in any way relative to what we consider intelligence. Why? Because it requires localized existence. This is why religion generally interprets God as a being or group of beings. Some of the major ones even go as far as to label God as "he" as if God was a man who looks down on us all taking notes, taking sides, and interjecting when we pray hard enough...an entity that intends on and continuously succeeds in creating all of the existence around us but cannot be identified. When people allow themselves it's easy to see that at the very least, God as described by religion does not describe reality. Religion provides dogma for a systematic belief in conclusions made through assumptions in observing the nature of cause and effect. People see the effects and assume the existence of God when they don't understand the nature of their cause. Beliefs however are literally no more than ideas people convince themselves to be true. Mental idols in place of acceptance that intelligence within a human context which cannot comprehend how vastly complex existence is. Do I mean to say that God isn't reality? No...just that calling everything we don't understand evidence of the work of God is counterproductive...doesn't matter have far back in the telephone game you go.

Einstein did acknowledge the existence of influence but I never read anything that suggested that he believed in God within the same context that religion uses...as you seem to suggest. "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."...I'm sure you've read this...An incredibly profound question and statement if you consider the implications. Why?... because if God had no choice, God did not exercise the influence of decision at a moment of creation. Not in the sense that it happened and God could do nothing about it...but that existence IS the continuous manifestation of God. That creation and existence comes from absolute nothingness. That God itself is the act of being. That God exists because everything does.

To me this doesn't put science in conflict with spirituality. Religion yes, spirituality no...but it depends who you ask. I'm not a religious person at all but I've read parts of spiritual text citing people like Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc. and within the context of what I said earlier their words take a totally different meaning. Instead of steering you towards a life of worship of something outside yourself they speak of self realization. Realization that you are the manifestation of God and that you and all of existence are one. That when you experience this relationship you no longer need to believe in anything because you know it to be true.

Is that really the case? Who the hell knows. That's a personal thing each individual should pursue on their own. My point is that you can't compare religion's rationale for the existence of God against science because it's thoroughly ridiculous. In this sense you are right..people will never understand how those two things relate mainly because they have no relationship.

Good luck everyone

D

keli138
- 04/19/2013 at 04:43

Amazingly well put and insightful, D. I completely agree with your logic.

Jami Baade
- 05/25/2011 at 04:10

As for the big bang theory, when was the last time there was an explosion on earth by itself, out of nowhere, with no one creating it or having a hand in it? Beside volcano eruptions, mother nature,etc. Someone with intelligence, put a bomb together with ingredients that we have to work with here on earth.

Science is really good at matmatically proving that a ball was thrown, at this velocity, for this timeframe but does not and can not address who threw the ball in the first place.

Everyone with an intelligent mind can see that religion is flawed and is like a game of telephone played over thousands of years, but that does not at all disprove the existence of an intelligent design or creator. Different religions have different stories and different ways of paying homage to their creators just like language has dozens of ways to name the same thing, a table for example.

Even Einstein didn't doubt the existence of something more, and an intelligent design. With every design isn't there a designer? Maybe dark matter is spirit? If you are a thinking and feeling human being who believes that we evolved from a piece of lava or an amoeba billions of years ago - and that our complex strands of perfect DNA evolved by chance and the conditions on earth just happen to be perfect for human life at the perfect distance from the sun to survive... to me that is the craziest theory of them all!

I think the universe keeps expanding because we keep looking where we aren't supposed to look, and I suspect that the brightest minds on earth will never figure this one out until we are meant to.

As for the folks that think that religion is a source for pain and dogma, you're right. But to be honest what isn't. Anything Us humans have created, is rife with destruction and corruption. Be it science or religion or government, everything that has a human element onto them automatically factors in everything that is f*ck*d up with humanity (Greed, bigotry, narrow mindedness etc etc).

@Randy: Since everyone here (Except a few who are here for the thrill of trolling on some poor sod) is here to increase our understanding of universe around us. Could you in a nut shell enlighten me with your understanding of Indian cosmology (Astrology). Even though to a layman, it may seem like mundane stuff, its got quite a lot of scientific thought in them (Im sure, carl sagan did a documentary on indian cosmology back in the 80's).

Are these documentaries all of the education that You Americans can get? Seems like a brainwashing. "All cosmologist agree that the Universe is 13,7 billions years old.", "Evolution is a fact."... According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe came out of nothing(!) - prediction of a group of people that become a "scientific fact". NGC 7603 - google it :_)

Yes, reality can be stranger than fiction - the good thing about scientists is that they are guided by reason and hence they very often make groundbreaking discoveries. What has the bible contributed to society, except a bunch of paranoid, intolerant people that are willing to kill each other based on MYTH? The big bang is infinitely more plausible than anything religion or the bible has to say about the subject.

Your Mom
- 01/26/2011 at 02:46

Would you rather believe that your days are limited or unlimited? See, that's why us Christians excel positively, because we have a positive state in mind that we will some day be with our creator. Now do all your fagtarted puns all you want, but I'm rock hard.(and I'm not commenting again.)

VYou should open a forum on the website so these comment whores can have a playground to write their useless comments in, and change the comment section to a review section with legitimate posts about the actual documentary.

Im all for commenting on videos and how they were, but using the comment area as a personal chat area is just getting annoying when you want to find a simple review of a video without every other comment being something non-related to the video because some ego on the other end has to comment on every letter said in a sentence to feel socially gratified over the internet.

Wow. Have to say, just in case anyone checks back here - tho it took MUCH longer to read all the comments then to watch the film, this was an excellent comment thread. I thought after viewing the doc - first dark matter (almost thought I was dealing with that), then dark energy (wtf), now I'm introduced to dark flow? All I can say is that better be some book Stephen Hawking writes! Truly, dark matter was beginning to look a lot like 'religious rationalism' to me. (it's invisible, but has effects, so we know that nothing has to be something...)The LINK that Vlatko provided really helped. As I infer, so, in the matter/anti-matter symmetry, we 'may' be looking at a 'preference to matter'? That would explain a lot. What I liked most about this doc was the honesty - that's what I like most about the scientific method (Though 'individuals' may hold onto their theories, others insist that however interesting, there's no Nobel Prize until you prove it)! Then re: the thread: some 'very' smart people willing to listen and debate and disagree. I was also thinking hallelujah (facetiously) maybe a few smart women as well, then (sorry Sophia) when the 'age of aquarius' was brought in to play, I swear my groan must have knocked out a satellite (hope Sophia will watch the doc link provided - you do have a smart and inquiring mind; I hope it's open too). But this got me thinking. Why is it that women (so many anyway) find it seemingly impossible to imagine the "there is no life after death" scenario. Even for the sake of discussion, hypothesis, what if?, etc. And I think it has to partly be biology, maybe soft wired rather than hard wired? Would women in the last 40,000 years or so have been willing to face the (very real) life threatening danger of giving birth to children, if they accepted that there child had a very low mortality rate, and IF they survived beyond age of 5, would still only live an average life span of 30 years (until very recently), if HER potential death and HER child's mean there is oblivion? My guess: Some MAN (probably a cleric) invented the ideas of an after life and immortality so that women would be 'willing' to go through pregnancy,child birth, and more than half their life trying to keep the result alive! Now today, even if the risks are not as high, the energy and commitment is still significant, so what if 'mother's' need to believe in something more in order to say yes to the work involved?

Randy and his gong,
Put aside ur phony love for math and science..........Fear many crunches and crashes like..credit, CDS, Soverign Default, Mortgage and many...First try to bring ur self at least up on the surface..and breathe...not the smoking pot..

All u need is being a MEN from 'Cattle', a clear commonsense and bowl of morality....U r a History...America is a History now.....All ur evils paying u back in full, u lowest of the low.

It is not right to think on such a large scale. We had explored so little and we have just started to make some assumption about the world around us.. This is one thing.. The second it is the fact that with each step we took reality changed every time, even when facts were beneath our noses.. :) We should start to question our instruments, not to presume how everything came into existence after the no sound explosion.. What if our cosmology is like a mythical journey while compared with the real thing? What if life is the opposite of creation? What if there was something there from the beginning that started to decay.. what if life is just an error or a disease, a chemical experiment gone wrong???? life is too fragile to be here for a reason.. we are again into an old paradigm.. we look at ourselves as we were the center.. everything that there is. And this makes our vision to be narrow. We believe the universe is it was small and then it got big.. but the smallest things we can see with the aid of artificial tech might be as big as everything that there is... Time gets the same sort of premonitory "scientific" view, but again, who can ever say that time is to be measured in this way???? The thing that we know is that we do not know exactly nothing. This is the biggest discovery ever! :)

randy man u can really go on and on...it takes all kinds to run this world...and ur just one of them...its good u made alot of money turning spaceships around very cool...and like you said ur time is up ...so let us clean up the mess ur gen created...they r countries in which men have guns pointed at there heads i bet maths is what is going on in his head when that happens...we need to be civilized...means to keep an open mind and the best people to keep an open mind who have the most knowledge in their respective fields someone like you...well nobody can open it for you....

After reading the first 10 or 12 comments I began to realize why the world is going to hell in a hand-basket.
For the chap that wants to discuss Newton; he was an amazing guy who founded modern Physics but like all good work, is was just a stepping stone to bigger and greater theories. Now we are finding that even more modern theories by Einstein are becoming outdated. Remember, he believed that "God does not play dice" after all ( In regards to Quantum Mechanics).
As to the "God" extremists, well, each to their own but remember that historically speaking religion has been responsible for a good many of the atrocities committed against mankind over the ages. I think most religious extremists have malfunctioning messenger particles!
For all you white trash name callers and zealots; get a life and take your chatter and banalities to a theological website. I'd like to hear from people who have comments on the video. Most of us are interested in learning/ advancement and acknowledge that there are deviations from the path along the way. That is the FUN of the whole science thing.

Patrick, im sure some people were saying that to Newton when he made his case for gravity.

What has been done is done using maths. they have a formula with missing "numbers". they then are able to induce towards different possibilities for what those things are. the term dark matter and dark energy and dark flow is admission of that mystery. it is basically saying "X". they are now in the rigorous process of discovering and proving what that X is. everyone is in admission that its a mystery what it is, but its pretty clear that there IS SOMETHING. and it must be accounted for in the formula.

no one is praying at anything. no one is declaring for certain that they know what "x" is, but there are hypothesis which are being tested. that is science and it is amazing.

you want to see praying at the altar of nothing, look at people who rip apart science with, at the most, a grade 11 understanding of what science is or how to do it.

From what I gather from the documentary is that there are two and maybe three things in the math, variables, they can't eplain the movements in the universe without, those being dark matter and dark energy. They also detect flow movement that can't be accounted for and insert a new variable, dark flow. The reason they are called "dark" is because they don't know what it is. So they bend the equation to fit the observation without conclusive proof of the existence.
Sounds a lot like religion to me.

In other words, empirically speaking, once we've made it to the edge of space, the marina trench of an atom, or an ultimate understanding of time, nothingness yada yada .. what will we be left with to deconstruct, except ourselves ...

You can go farther n farther, deeper n deeper or madder n madder, but you won't solve this one until you acknowledge and add an 'x' factor into that equation .. the existence of the seeker - us - as a construct of physics and not biology ... ;p

Lovely Doc ! "We still dunno, and we may never" is the perf place to restart though ...

Though the stream of posturings and pontifications makes for griping reading, I have a question about the video. Dark matter was postulated to account for the movement of galaxies; the outer stars move at the same speed as the inner ones. The sum of visible matter, stars etwas, was not enough to satisfy the equations. An unseen or ‘dark’ matter was put forward to satisfy the equations. If I remember right, dark matter is supposed to be 5 times more copious than seen matter.

A few questions:
Isn’t calling this affect ‘matter’ an ontological overstatement, as it is only known by its affect? Postulating volumes and forces of unobserved stuff and then comparing those volumes to our understanding of matter does not mean the unobserved stuff is matter it just means it has the gravitational affect of 5 times the amount of the visible matter.

If dark matter is supposed to be all around us and passing through us, how can it exert gravitational force? ‘Seen’ matter does not act like this. It follows, at least at one level, the Newtonian law; “Two objects of mass cannot occupy the same space at the same time.” It seems this basic law is required for a gravitational effect. If one body or collection of bodies is larger than another so as to draw the smaller to it, but as the smaller object approaches the larger the larger one simply passes through the smaller, whence commeth the gravity?

Finally, How does dark matter solve the problem of the outer suns of a galaxy moving at the same speed as the inner? Whatever matter present, functioning as matter, should not change the laws of gravitation. Bodies at the perimeter should be moving more slowly than the inner ones. Adding more and more matter ‘seen’ or ‘dark’ should not change this law:

Newton’s Pricipia: Definition 8:
"The motive quantity of a centripetal force, is the measure of the same proportional to the motion which it generates in a given time.

Thus the weight is greater in a greater body, less in a less body; and.in the same body, it is greater near to the earth, and less at remoter distances. This sort of quantity is the centripetency, or propension of the whole body towards the centre, or, as I may say, its weight; and it is always known by the quantity of an equal and contrary force just sufficient to hinder the descent of the body."

So ‘matter’ in a parallel universe or matter in ours that in no other way than by satisfying a formulaic need cannot easily be introduced to supply one force when all the attending forces are not present.

This comment thread has been very entertaining. Dare I say, more entertaining than the documentary itself? I agree mostly with Randy's viewpoint. However, he delivers in a questionable manner.

I have no authority to say that anyone is right or wrong (although I have bypassed any religious nonsense) for I am not a math or physics major. I am a mere ChemEng with much interest in every scientific field (mainly chemistry). A couple months late to the thread but I've enjoyed it this far, Thanks!

Found an internet café-great…..
What a piece of work is man-how noble in REASON….this faculty the power to reason-to make conscious decisions distinguishes 'man' from the animal kingdom. Interestingly the word 'Man'is rooted in the Sanskrit Manas meaning 'mind'....
I’d like to share the following…….

The Evolution of Evolution
Basic Meme: We are entering the first Age of Conscious Evolution, the evolution of evolution from unconscious to conscious choice.
Conscious Evolution arises out of:
• The new cosmology – the understanding of cosmogenesis and the evolving universe of which we are a dynamic element;
• Our global crises, which can lead to systems collapse and species-wide extinction,
forcing us to evolve or die;
• Our radical new evolutionary technologies which can destroy life as we know it, or
transform life beyond carbon-based/technological humanity, transcending the animal human condition.
Conscious Evolution is experienced spiritually as our yearning to connect with the deeper patterns of creation and to become one with that reality.
It is experienced socially as the passion to express our unique creativity for the good of ourselves and the larger world. It is felt as a relentless creativity, the incarnation of the process of creation as our own impulse to evolve, to connect, to love on another.
It is expressed scientifically and technologically as the human intent to understand nature and to cocreate with nature new forms of healing and evolving ourselves and our world, eventually transcending the current creature-human condition.
Conscious evolution is not a new ideology or philosophy. It is simply a noticing of the fact that we are aware of evolution, and are affecting our own evolution by everything that we do. It is actually evolution become aware of itself as us. We are the face of evolution. Every one of us is evolution in person. The process of creation has put power in our hands that we used to attribute to our gods. We have created capacities that transcend our moral and spiritual teachings, especially in science and technology. We are literally at the frontier of becoming co-creators with the process of creation or devolution and possible extinction.'..

Before I leave for Normandy tomorrow (and will have to rely on an internet cafe) thought I'd send a quick response.... .....The word 'spirituality does not belong to the churches or to the world religions..
..Spirituality....is essentially the establishing of right human relations, the promotion of goodwill and finally the establishing of a true peace on earth.
We are inspired by Principles....such as goodness -beauty-truth is not this capacity for 'sensitive response' the illustration of the 'spiritual element' at work within us.?
The will to strive toward betterment-the will to make the world a sweeter-saner and more beautiful place seems to me to indicate the 'spiritual element'. Freedom of thought, the questioning of presented truths, a refusal to accept the teachings of the churches in terms of past theology-is characteristic of creative spiritual thinking...the 'spiritual element' in you seems to me quite palpable.

Yes, I understand, but my position, (in case I haven't bludgeoned you over the head with it enough already, LOL), is that there simply is no "spritual element" to balance against the emperical/materialistic world view.

If I am right, then you, and other "hippies" (that is a catch-all term for me to label anyone who embraces magical thinking, but also a term of endearment!), are searching for a "spiritual element" that doesn't exist and you waste your time, which is so very precious and brief.

To me, it seems fruitless and pointless to chase ghosts when there are studies that can actually inspire someone to build a better bridge or road, or a damn rechargable battery that doesn't lose its ability to hold a charge after a year...

(Sorry, I am having problems with my rechargable phones/handsets and taking it out on you, LOL!)

Thank you Randy-what you just wrote means a lot to me. One of the reasons for my persistence on this forum was curiously enough your 'grumpiness' and a great respect for your 'passion' for Maths and Science. I recognise that through scientific research the way through into the deeper Mysteries of the universe is being forged yet the progressive development of the mind and intellect needs to be balanced by the 'spiritual element' and thus guard against a purely materialistic/empirical view. One might suggest that this calls for greater integration within the individual and is reflected by a mind and heart working in tandem. Knowledge is akin to fire -misuse brings us to the brink of destruction. The Mystery Schools of the past prepared those aspiring to such knowledge through the initiatory process. In the life of the individual and collectively the principle of conflict is continually at work and we are faced with one crisis after another. Points of crisis when surmounted bring about a fundamental re-orientation of ones life around core beliefs and principles. At the root of humanity's problems lies the 'great heresy of separation'. In seeking a common ground through respect and a mutual reciprocity bridges can be constructed. This seems to me to indicate a way forward and holds the key to to what Barbera Marx Hubbard calls Evolutionary Synthesis.
The words of Father Félix addressed fifty years ago to the French academicians have nearly become immortal as a truism. “Gentlemen,” he said, “you throw into our teeth the reproach that we teach mysteries . . . . But imagine whatever science you will; follow the magnificent sweep of its deductions . . . . . and when you arrive at its parent source you come face to face with the unknown!”*

Veiling wisdom in words, particularly another man's words, often defeats the purpose. Wisdom is an understanding, an insight, the linking of cause and effect while appreciating the underlying mechanic. Wisdom depends on a frame of reference, on pieces of info, relatively unrelated tidbits of know-how that distil into a package which is fully understood. Insight. This is wisdom. As such, wisdom can be applied, because the mechanic is clear and understood.

By shrouding the words in .. (can't think of the proper term) mysticity (yeah, let's go with that) you throw mud in already murky waters. The links a person misses in his frame of reference, the links that are essential to understanding key principle and the mechanic itself, must always be made painstakingly clear in words. Lots of words. You can translate knowledge easily, but wisdom (as you described) is more than the sum of it's parts.

If your wish is to convey wisdom, enlighten your fellow man, my suggestion would be to rely on people not understanding you, rather than expect them to piece together the same information and perspective from poetic quotes and non-sequitors.

Listen, I don't agree with you, but I like you. You are intelligent and sincere. Misguided, I think, LOL! but smart!

Thank you, so much, for this conversation, I am really enjoying it!

And you keep quoting to me! You reminded me of Bucky Fuller so I pulled out my leather bound, first editions of the 27 volume set of his great, insane work, "Everything I Know". And have started reading it for the sixth time!

Please forgive me if I was harsh with you in the past, I can be a grumpy old dude!

Yes- wisdom is revealed in simply living the life....a pain-free life seems to be an illusion. When I contemplate wisdom what springs most readily to mind concerns the alchemical and symbolic process in which base metal is transformed into ‘gold’ as the dross is burnt away. Yes DK perhaps I do quote a 'lot of stuff'...however my intention is not as you put it to 'cite knowledge' but rather leave the reader free to unlock the wisdom veiled in the words. Wisdom speaks directly to the heart-it does not require to be displayed.
@Randy ..Sometimes it does feel to me that we are on the way out as a species but then the spiritual element in me reminds me that we are so very small beneath the sky. I end with another quote..'what the caterpillar calls the end of the world-the Master calls the butterfly'.

D-K wrote, and it is extremely important for everyone to read and re-read many times until it sinks in:

"We can’t quantify the knowledge we have in respects to the knowledge we can potentially attain, Science is providing answers to matters of direct importance and influence. Contributions of Astrology and other pseudo-sciences pale in comparison to what actual science contributes to the progression of the modern human collective. If anything, we should be focussing more attention towards scientific understanding and reorganize moral and ethical systems so that science is no longer hindered by irrationality...."
-----------------

A magnificent crystalization of my thoughts and ideas which counter Sophia's and other irrationalists. Really. Read that quote and then read it again. And think about it.

Science, engineering, and accompanying mathmatics provide real, quantifiable benefits to our society and species. Let us not waste it by turning back on old habits from 30 to 100 thousand years ago. Be better than your ape-brain!

They have been lieing all through the 20th century, to save their wporthless occupations. Worse is that they have taught our children this dogma, similarly like the plagerism called christianity. Wallace Thornhill is a true genius, unlike Einstein, and the circus of mathematicians that followed him. Check out thunderbolts of the gods. Cosmology in crisis.

Edison’s conception of matter was quoted in our March editorial article. The great American electrician is reported by Mr. G. Parsons Lathrop in Harper’s Magazine as giving out his personal belief about the atoms being “possessed by a certain amount of intelligence,” and shown indulging in other reveries of this kind. For this flight of fancy the February Review of Reviews takes the inventor of the phonograph to task and critically remarks that “Edison is much given to dreaming,” his “scientific imagination” being constantly at work.
Would to goodness the men of science exercised their “scientific imagination” a little more and their dogmatic and cold negations a little less. Dreams differ. In that strange state of being which, as Byron has it, puts us in a position “with seal’d eyes to see,” one often perceives more real facts than when awake. Imagination is, again, one of the strongest elements in human nature, or in the words of Dugald Stewart it “is the great spring of human activity, and the principal source of human improvement.

An ancient injunction states 'as above, so below....the collective body of humanity seems way out of alignment with what might be called the Ceremonial Order of the Universe. Carl Sagan commented
'If out lives are controlled by a set of traffic signals in the sky why try to change anything'..surely our profound connection with the universe is reflected by the way in which we utilise our 'intelligence' here on earth. Another ancient injunction states 'Man first know thyself, then thou shalt know the Universe. If through our misuse of knowledge and greed we have succeeded in bringing the planet toward the edge of an abyss-then clearly it is time for change and we can't change anything without understanding how to wield and control the forces of our 'personality' .'Money' like 'knowledge' serves much like a conduit or channel along which our impulses flow. Sadly these impulses reflect our insecurity-fear-and greed-yes as Randy stated 'money talks'.
The divine Law of Vibration states that nothing rests, everything moves, everything vibrates. The lower the vibration, the slower the vibration; the higher the vibration the faster the vibration.
The philosophical and scientific basis for this law can be found in quantum physics and in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. It can also be found in such ancient philosophies as the Vedas, which are the most ancient scriptures of India, as well as in the Gospel according to John, which reads, ‘In the beginning was the Word’ – the vibration of sound.[i]
All the physical matters are composed of vibration.
Dr. Max Planck, PhD
One might consider man as an atom or unit of intelligence whose constitution is made up of atoms of differing qualities vibrating at different frequencies. When two frequencies (matter/spirit) are brought together, the lower will always rise to meet the higher. This is the principle of resonance. When a piano is tuned, a tuning fork is struck, and then brought close to the piano string that carries that same musical tone. The string then raises its vibration automatically and attunes itself to the same rate at which the fork is vibrating.. “Whatever that be which thinks, which understands, which wills, which acts, it is something celestial and divine, and upon that account must necessarily be eternal.”
—ClCERO. *

My Irish Brother ! Good to see your still kicking around the thoughts . Long time no post. Good to see you around here , my friend. You should come get on the Expelled or the Wormhole docs and use your brain as usual. Slainte!

@Sophia: Rather than trying to save room to incorporate that which we don't understand, we should be focussing our energy towards physical discovery. Philosophy has benefits, surely, but mathemathically mapping, engineering, testing and making sense of the observable is far more productive.

We can't quantify the knowledge we have in respects to the knowledge we can potentially attain, Science is providing answers to matters of direct importance and influence. Contributions of Astrology and other pseudo-sciences pale in comparison to what actual science contributes to the progression of the modern human collective. If anything, we should be focussing more attention towards scientific understanding and reorganize moral and ethical systems so that science is no longer hindered by irrationality.

Individually, Astrology and other psuedo-sciences might calm a mind or provide a comforting delusion, but large scale and long term these ponderings are rendered useless.

Thank you, sir. Just peeking in, taking some downtime from my busy schedule, to crush some dreams and stomp on those adolescent fantasies that are destroying my country, LOL!

Let me put this out to the room. It applies to what we are discussing, but really, all aspects of our lives.

I'm sorry to sound mercenary or cynical, but money IS everything. Anyone who says, "money isn't everything", is probably trying to take it from you, or has none themselves.

Was it Paine or Hamilton that said, "There can be no freedom without economic freedom..."? I could look it up, but... I am in a bit of a hurry...

Poor people have no choices. The poor have few options. In the USA especially, money is health, security, freedom of choice, and yes, breeding options... as well. Securing our genetics and satisfying evolution.

(Debt doesn't count. That is more slavery. Liquid cash, my brothers and sisters!)

So, my point is, esoterica is cute and fun, but if you can't BANK it, don't thank it. Ignore things that don't create wealth and lift up the economy of our flailing country, (USA). Education, sciences, maths, engineering... time is critical, there is no more time for philosophy or god-pondering, or any of that other belly-button-gazing.

Is it hard? Yes. It SHOULD be hard. Life is a struggle and then you die. That's how it works. That's a good thing! The HARD is what makes it great!

Be strong, grown-up men and women. Put the things of childhood behind you and work to build things, physical things, or the ideas that create them.

Anyways, I'm climbing off of the soapbox now, and getting back to work!

Welcome back Randy. Back again to lay waste to all the pseudo-sciences.

@Sophia

I'm no expert but as I understand it astrology statements use something called a Barnum effect. These are vague statements that can relate to anybody, but the reader will perceive this as being specifically true for them.

Hi Randy- Perhaps I have not studied and investigated the subject of astrology in the way that you appear to have done-yet I cannot simply dismiss this as 'nonsense'. As you say we need science, intellect, maths and engineering but it is not ALL we need. It seems to me a question of 'approach' -one might well ask what is knowledge-and why are some aspects of knowledge esoteric and other aspects exoteric...The knowledge that deals with the hidden or subjective side of life possibly makes 'no-sense' when approached solely through the intellect/concrete mind. The Ageless Wisdom teaches that...the 'esoteric aspects of knowledge are really those zones of consciousness not yet conquered, and brought within the radius of control of the indwelling Entity..' In the context that one is essentially a 'spiritual being' functioning in a material body the problem seems to me lie in 'identification'. The over development of the lower or concrete mind can lead one to identify solely with information which is concerned with densest objectivity. It might be suggested that perhaps one of the goals of the 'evolutionary impulse' is to lift the collective consciousness of the race to a level whereby little by little the intuition or transcendental mind will eventually supersede the lower or concrete mind. It may be that until the intuition or transcendental mind is functioning it may not be possible to penetrate into the deeper Mysteries- subjective/hidden side of life. The Mysteries are approached through the initiatory process-which involves the expansion of consciousness from one state to another, each state enlarges the vista. The following seems appropriate here ..
'until the path of Knowledge has been added to the path of Love, the major initiations cannot be undertaken.....'
Anyway I'm not 'clever' enough to work with the maths -perhaps I must use a different approach to comprehend 'life'.
Until people and nations change their 'separative' and divisive attitudes we will continue to breed mistrust and fear as we compete with the notion of 'other'.

I have studied astrology from all over the world; Asian, including Indian, (the most fascinating), Mayan, Semitc/Middle Eastern culminating in the European synthesis. It's all bullocks. The majority of it was invented before telescopes, when only 5 planets were visible to the naked eye. Surely the other 3 (and the planetoid Pluto), had some influence on birth charts?

Also, they were invented with an Earth-centric solar system model.... completely false. It was only in the early 20th century that the Western form was revised by charlatans to sell tickets to the show (that's a metaphor).

Finally, I have studied all forms of divination. My favorite is Tarot, and I have made a great deal of money from that whack-quackery. But, I needed to stop because I knew it was a con and I had ethical nightmares about it.

I have 27 books in my library on divination, another 60 on Tarot and I have collected Tarot decks since I was a kid, (I have Frnech, Spanish, German, Indian, modern, Rider-Waite, Crowleyian, Rosicruscian, etc...) some 40 decks perhaps...

It all nonsense. I have been there. Intellect and science, math and engineering, is all we need. Indeed, we MUST rely on these things or our country dies. Because other countries are better at these things than we, and they are going to wipe the floor with us in the next decade or two.

I don't care, because I am old and will be dead soon with no kids to worry about, but if you want this country to succeed... drop the silly and work the maths!

How is astrology any different than cold reading? In fact Id say cold reading takes some skill but astrology just makes generalizations without practice. Almost anyone could become an astrologist in a week tops.

The extract I quoted is the result of investigation along the lines of occult science.....The 'Master DK' goes on to say the following ..'The heavens, the constellations, signs and planets, mean one thing to the astronomers, still another to the astrologers, whilst they are simply bewildering galaxies of light to the average citizen...' In the ancient Egyptian days this science had reached a very high level of accuracy. He goes on to say.....'Anything now possible along these lines can only be regarded as approximate, and, therefore, certainty in analysis, prediction and interpretation, is not possible. This whole subject is one of the greatest obscurity, and quite incomprehensible to the average astrologer...' Esoteric astrology is entirely concerned with the forces and energies which affect the Consciousness aspect of the human being, and condition the personality life (form).

Hi Randy..it is worth reminding ourselves that we are a 'work-in-progress'...the slow accretion of wisdom is governed by 'forces' of which we know so little.
...'That astrology is a science, and a coming science, is true. That astrology in its highest aspect and its true interpretation, will enable man eventually to focus his understanding, and to function rightly, is equally true. That in the revelations that astrology will make in time to come will be found the secret of the true co-ordination between soul and form, is also correct. But THAT astrology is not yet to be found.. Too much is overlooked and too little known, to make astrology the exact science that many claim it is. The claim will be fulfilled at some future date, but the time is not yet...''(Extract from Ponder in This)

@Superpescado..'In 1918 Max Heindel wrote: "The process of preparation for the Aquarian Age has already commenced; and as Aquarius is an airy, scientific, intellectual sign, it is a foregone conclusion that the new faith must be rooted in reason and able to solve the riddle of life and death in a manner that will satisfy both the mind and the religious instinct." As we have in the past evolved five senses by means of which we contact the present visible world, so shall we in the far distant future evolve another sense which will enable us to see the denizens of the Etheric Region.'
Worth pondering what might evolve if the two pillars of Science and Spirituality (Mind/Heart) were to come together in an atmosphere of respect....
Polar opposites generate a magnetic field....conflict is there alongside great potential-a potential that is palpable when the mind and heart work in tandem. From instinct to intellect to Intuition-from this union unfolds a deeper knowing.

The power of the human brain is greater than great. We can see this by citing cosmologists. They try to explain the universe traveling through time with their mathematical equations and theories to give us 'what happened' billions of years ago and what may be hence.

@Ashish As it happens I have a great respect for Eckhart Tolle and I do have his book waiting for me on the bookshelf. Excerpts that I have come across have been very much on my frequency as you 'intuited'.....The way you refer to Eckhart Tolle as being more 'my thing' and Sam Harris being more 'in tune' with your 'frequency' seems to me to indicate how certain thoughts/ideas carry a certain resonance-a quality- a vibration that seems to call forth a reciprocal response. In some way the inner and the outer are drawn into relationship through this resonance.

...'But I think where our opinions really differ is that these feelings we experience are in some way external. My view is that it is completely internal and will seize to exist when we die.' I couldn't quite follow this.

Have you read The Power of Now by Eckhart Toole? It seems like your kinda thing. I read it some time ago, its a very interesting read sadly I have not had a chance to practice what is taught in the book.

I had a somewhat difficult time accepting many of the claims. I suppose I have more of a Sam Harris outlook on spirituality. I think what we describe as being spiritual or in a meditative state is something we can observe through various brain scanning methods. But that doesn't mean that we can benefit from it. I think as our scanning methods become more sophisticated we will reveal more about the benefits of meditation and many sceptics may have to reconsider their prejudice towards ancient ideas. I think this is why being both sceptical and open-minded is important. But until the empirical evidence is brought to light I must maintain a somewhat neutral position in the matter.

But I think where our opinions really differ is that these feelings we experience are in some way external. My view is that it is completely internal and will seize to exist when we die.

According to Ageless Wisdom there are many levels of consciousness. Within each unit of consciousness we call a man is found a particular level of awareness. Awareness is a progressive state of being..extending beyond the limitation of the senses..
There are many states of consciousness(or awareness) as there are rates of vibration.
A study of the ancient scriptures of the East has much to offer and perhaps through the blending between the two hemispheres a clearer approach may well be possible.
In occult science 'Space is an Entity'...We speak at times of an expanding universe; what we really mean, is an expanding consciousness.
The following extracts are from 'The Soul and Its Mechanism'..

In the Eastern tradition it is asserted that matter is spirit or energy at its lowest manifestation, and spirit is matter at its highest expression.
....'In between these two extremes, and thus manifesting in time and space, come those diversities of the manifested life-consciousness studied by he religious man, the psychologist, the scientist,and the philosopher, according to their peculiar predilections and tendencies. All are studying the varying aspect of the one animating life.'

...''the differentiations, the terminologies, and the tabulations in connection with these various approaches to truth are the cause of much confusion...We are engaged in separating a unified Reality into parts, and in so doing we lose our sense of proportion and over -emphasise that particular part which we happen temporarily to be dissecting. But the whole remains intact, and our realisation of this Reality grows as we become inclusive in our consciousness and participate in a veritable experience.'

Basically what you guys are saying is that while science and math are necessary/commedable fields of study, and needed to sustain life as we know it. Still, love and passion- these are the reasons we sustain life in the first place. Some people find that passion in science and the beautiful symmetry of math, others find it in gardening or art. Religion doesn't really have to be part of this discussion at all. In my opinion religion cripples us as individuals and segregates our world, even if does give some hope. That hope is a false one, built on ideals and generalizations. Don't think that scientifically minded poeple do not value love and understanding, we do. We just feel that to seek them through religion is vain. The history of religon is one of murder, racism, genocide, intolerance, segregation, and guilt. We promote an open society where ideas are shared and knowledge is sacred. A world where people are judged on thier actions, conclusions are trust worthy and not led by personal agendas, and our children recieve the best possible education to help them manage failing resources in an over populated world. You do not have to be a scientist or a mathmatician to see the value in this future. Nor do you have to be either to participate at an equall standard. Like Bill used to say, "It's just a ride- we can change it when we want-It's just a choice. No savings of money or work to get done, no discoveries to be made- just a choice right now, between fear and love." If you choose the latter please consider what religion has brought us in the past. Through out the thousands of years of recorded history and before we have redefined and adjusted religion- to the same end. Segregation, guilt, and ultimately war. Just think about it.

We have evolved to become conscious of ourselves because it helped us to survive knowing that the events that are occurring are happening to 'me' and 'I' am important. In my opinion we are not 'aware' that others are conscious, but we understand that they are so. i.e. we don't sense they are conscious but have the intelligence to see they are no different to us and therefore have a conscience. I don't think our very distant ancestors were conscious, because it had to have had evolved.

We don't really fully understand what biological factors bring about consciousness, but this only shows how little we understand and the search is still on. Lets not try to reach conclusions and have definitive answers to difficult questions in the absence of evidence. I love saying 'I don't know' because I really don't and that is the only absolute truth I see in this moment in time with regards to consciousness.

We don't know the reasons for everything, but we know there is a reason. We need to find it and cannot assume anything. That's the challenge posed by nature, God or the Matrix.

They wouldn't be suspect @roachinkansas. If you imagined a list of the most suspicious characters ever; and then add to the list another list of fictional suspicious characters. somewhere at the top of this list would be the person claiming to know absolute truth.

@Sophia. Everything we know is a product of our 5 senses, as is consciousness. If you add extra properties that link consciousness to god, you are rationalizing god, which is a futile process that will always be doomed to failure, or at least you are building your house on a foundation of sand. Rational critique will always tear down the walls of non-sensory belief.

If you are using the definition of consciousness to be percieve/interact/self aware within the environment, then i don't see how you come to some of your conclusions, although there are different definitions. Another one is the 'i feel' part of an experience. Surely there are many others.

Its a mine field to use consciousness in any of it's many flavours in a rational argument. As it's not clearly definable.

What separates and divides us from one another is our individual perception of truth....the paths are many but the truth is one.....The varying interpretations stem from the beliefs, assumptions and expectations we bring to the situation–what psychologists call our mind sets. The following lines seems appropriate here so will post...

..'Identifying God with the light of consciousness brings new meaning and significance to many traditional descriptions of God.

Whatever is taking place in my mind, whatever I may be thinking, believing, feeling or sensing, the one thing I cannot doubt is consciousness. Consciousness is my only absolute, unquestionable truth. If the faculty of consciousness is God, then God is the truth.

The same applies to other people. The only thing I do not doubt about you is that you are conscious and have your own interior world of experience. I can doubt your physical form–indeed, modern physics tells me there is nothing really there, no material thing, that is. All that I perceive of you is a projection in my mind. I can doubt what you say. I can doubt your thoughts and feelings. But I do not doubt that "in there" is another conscious being like myself.

Like God, consciousness is omnipresent. Whatever our experience, consciousness is always there. It is eternal, everlasting.'

The earth is alive, to stop earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc would require killing the Earth The best science can do is try to predict when they will happen and get out of the way.

With regards to Hitler. Yes its true science can do nothing to prevent the emergence of such people. But science and maths had everything to do with defeating the Germans. If mathematicians had not managed to crack the enigma code, the outcome of the war could have been very different. But the same could be said to those brave soldiers who found hope and strength in religion. I suppose there are two types of people. Those who hold the truth to be absolutely sacred no matter what it reveals and concerned only with how it is found. Alternatively there are those who are more concerned with the results regardless of how they are found or come about.

All religion has done is try to suppress science every step of the way!
Tell me one thing that your religion has cured, or made life more easier than science has.

Was it necessary for the inquisition? all the religious wars in the past? and all the religious wars going on right now that are, and have, killed untold millions of people, all in the name of your man made stone age God, stone age religion!!

I am so sorry you are so sour on us low lifes that never quite accomplished the heights that maths and science could take us. I am not saying you havent proved your worth to the world as a whole, but you at times have not made it easy for the rest of us either. I wont go into all that science has done for medicine (one point that can bring loads of comments one) but there even here it has had its limits. What with all the pills theyve come out with in the last decade that suppose to help mankind, but with all the side effects (celebrex to name one really good one) it makes it hard for us little man to really trust you science types at times.
You can give me the brush off and tell me to go back to my cave and not have all the products of my well hard earned living has brought me. And yes I have worked a lifetime and accomplished much in my little world. Having raised two fine sons and now at the stage in my life where home is paid for, cars paid for, no debts to our names and living the good life as you so say. But it was gotten by blood sweat and tears from hard work. So hats off to you science types but its also us hard working blokes that keep this world going, always remember that.....

You dont have to understand it. Just accept that it is the most beneficial endeavour man has ever embarked upon, kick back, smoke a cigar and say thank you to all the bright sparks that have made your life so comfortable.

If you don't like move to a cave in afganistan where you can avoid all this horrible non-hitler saving science and tech. You can then take a 10 mile hike through the sun every day to fetch your daily drinking water, wash all your clothes by hand in a river, and never again watch your favourite tv programme or TDF documentary. Then in a week after all your beauty products have run out come back and talk to me again.

Furthermore why dont you just turn off your computer now? if you hate science and maths so much: In short, wake up look around you, thank science and math daily for your overpampered and luxurious life and quit bittchin about what science can't do.

@theCarols. I'm so sorry that maths cant save people from Hitler and that it cant make you a cup of coffee in the morning and for a matter of fact it cant save us from the stone age zombie jews. Do you get my drift. If not i'll spell it out for you. Take away all the benefits to society brought about by science and you would still be living in a cave.

Try to look at the plus side. According to Walter Lewin, Physisc proffessor at MIT, The technology of nowadays is like having 100 slaves at you disposal!

Was it necessary for despots like Hitler, Stalin and so forth to kill millions for life to exist, what did science and math do here. Sure maths and science bring some solutions but there are many more things they cant bring cures to. You are all so fast to put down religion, but for many of us, its the one thing that can carry us through all the tradedy thats brought about by man and his premise of cure alls for this world.

Okay all you math and science experts; enough of the laws of gravity and so forth. I see plenty of examples right here on old planet earth that you can fix your teeth into. Can you find a way with all your brainiac methods to stop the volcano's, the earthquakes, hurricanes, tornado's, tzunami's and number of tragedies from happening that happens every day here on planet earth. Since the time of Newton not one of you have been able to put your science around any of these and bring them to a halt. How many people have died right here in our lifetime to make you all think of saving mankind here and not worrying about systems we can ever hope to see.
Carol
I never got to graduate grade twelve but that doesnt mean I dont have a mind and cant think. Bring solutions to our problems with all your maths and science.

QM. Have wrote so much stuff on this that I was sounding like Deepak Chopra.
Many bonafide scientists seem to agree that QM hinges on probable actions, matter is not matter, so says Hans-Peter Durr, Prof, of physics-Max Planck Institute. Matter as we know it, exists only in the mind.

Einstein said that spacetime are not constant, but vary with speed of of observer. Space and time are not fixed.

Entanglement is a strange feature of QP, if you link together say, a photon of light or particle,that makes them two parts of the same entity, separate them and put one part say, at at the deep field of space, 13.7 billion light years away, a change in one is instantly reflected in the other. "Erwin Schrodinger"

Everything seems to be in a process of entanglement, our thoughts themselves are entangled with the probable actions of what makes up matter at the Quantum level.

Q/M isnt deterministic. Q/M is actually probabilistic. Its in a nut shell , the calculation of probabilities. Basic Q/M is accepted. But alot or most is still in the works. Yet only a theoretical conclusion brought on by the calculations of the probabilities. Why buy in on it all without all the evidence?

Newton mechanics only explain the observable. Q/M the non-observable. Hence macro and micro. In fact Newton and Eienstein mechanics are as a consequence to Quantum. Thus the later was to be taken to another level by the more recent. Quantum doesnt prove Newton or Eienstein wrong, it explains why and then asks how. So whats wrong with that?

A quantum object is not set. Its a state of probable processes, probable relations to other quantum objects and probable conclusions. Think of wave functions. That doesnt mean a quantum object is set in its ways, but, it has an understandable way in which it always behaves.
Eienstein said," May the spirit of Newtons's method give the power to restore unison between physical reality and the profoundest characteristic of Newton's teachings "strict causality."

As for the god theory , well , I say that you religees will embrace the very thing that proves you wrong , in order to mis-interpret it to suit your fantasy. What do you represent? ID? Christianity? Satan?

Ill say no more until you reply. If you do. I met another one of your "ID" buddies the other day. He had a similar argument that had the stench of godly redemtion. " God is mental. God is not physical . God is this as I see it. God is that because you cant prove he isnt. Etc , etc , etc." Nothing but a petty attempt to bast*&^ize science for the sake of having it both ways. A bi- sexual idea from nothing.

@Max Plack
Newton mechanics dead , you say? How so? Please elaborate on this and while you are at it , tell me specifically which laws of Newton you are refering to. I would also like to know (as others stated.) how you concluded that Q/M has anything to do with the "scriptures". Also , scriptures from which book of fables are you refering to?

Specifics , please. I mean facts and not biblical reference , twisted and manipulated to fit your idea of god and science. Examples would be nice and maybe some insight as to whom your sources are?

Max Planck and Einstain have taken over long time ago. Newtownian paradigm has been dead for a 100 years. Quantum mechanics has confirmed the scriptrues. Religion and science are one and the same nowdays. Sorry to say it but that´s the true. This other things going on is just a game, how to diss someone instead of proving it.

Randy get a job, killing time over internet wouldnt help you in ANYWAY..you are just another internet wannabe hoe..
accept the truth and quit commenting :D
Dont reply cause i'm never gonna check this again lol bye enjoy bit*h!

I think Vlatko had a unique idea with making a site where people ,from all walks and races , can discuss ,(agree or disagree) the topic as they see it.

I , for one, can actually say that the conversations I ve had here have made me think a little and gave me some insight into some things I didnt previously have alot of knowledge on.

(Plus , as they say , all publicly is good publicity. ) Not always but , you know what Im saying. Not that he wants people arguing but rather educating eachother through debate.

Im sure you have seen his intelligence come through. Dont be so quick to second guess your statements.

"Mean what you say and say what you mean." Thats all you can do. There will always be a nay-sayer and a sh*&talkers , but there are always those that heed truth and wisdom based on fact or factual experience . Knowledge is a great tool for all. If they use it. Heck , even knowledge you dont agree with can be handy. (Sos you can ram it right up somones..well , you know.)

Serenity? I have no idea what you are refering to. To me serenity is peace of mind. Not peace of people but peace within. No sweating the small things. Only the things that are an effect on our existence.We could all be so humble as to disregard anothers feel . But we could also be open to a real concept. (of science) , Please , bible guys , dont even bring your ghostly zombie into this,

Thats a quantum thought , " Dont be simple or blind , but be open and realistic ."

I will ask this , Why god? Why not acceptence (?sp) for facts? Why not trying to disprove instead of vouching? Why resort to "no evidence" as opposed to the "most evidence"?

There can be questions derived from lack of fact , but since fact exsists , why keep co-signing with the rare , . 0001%, ? Makes no sense to not admit when you are wrong. Makes sense to learn and apply.

F&*^ a god and a religion. Thats some , as we say in th U.S. , short bus , tinted bus sh*^%.

I will say this , just because he , or me , for instance , doesnt reply to a persons comment . doesnt mean that I dont understand . Rather , I dont feel you understand. I feel you just speak on the last thing that made you think. Not , at all , looking from the otherside of the fence.

Like Achems said," How far down the hole.."? (da*& , did I spell hole wrong?)

@Randy
Thanks. My brain may be damaged but it still works from time to time.

See people , ( Not at anyone specificly. Just an observation .)
Too often people jump on board a theory or idea, without really waiting until ALL the evidence has been evaluated or tested. It is not wrong to research and develop an understanding of something theoretically but it is insane to buy in without real proof of its existence.

I dont think QT/M is a waste of resources but rather an investment towards the evolution of man and science alike. If we can just get the world powers that be to invest equally in this , we could see some seriously rapid results.

Of course it goes back to us really never running out of questions , thus leaving just enough wiggle room for the science doubters to say we cant prove everything. Even though all factual scientific evidence available points in the same direction.

No matter how small the room to wiggle may be , the religees will be a wiggling. Because really they would be and are the only thing holding science to the pace as it is today. We could definitely speed things up if the doubters would just get out of the way. I mean , heck if we cant stop religion as a whole , it would be very religious and courteous of them just to shut the F up and keep it to themselves. You know , Fine be religious and doubtful but dont stand in the way. If you dont like what science says , dont even look at it. Ill be more than happy to look for them.

You dont see science holding them back. ( i guess one could argue that science cant hol it back since it cant and hasnt gone anywhere for centuries.) In fact they use and abuse it for their agenda.

Even now religion is trying to make ugly QT/M to explain god. What blaspheme . Its ubsurd.

The reason I was so angry with you, is that I helping Charles B. (who I actually like, despite his christian dogma! I know the good guys from the bad guys, I've been around the rodeo a few times...), and trying to make him feel better about himself, and you cr*pped all over it.

Guilt is another BIG cause of weight gain. I was trying to HELP him. I'm a doctor.

Funny you should mention Haramein. I was digging around that for quite sometime recently and happen to think there is a possiblity he is on to something. ( with the whole atom nucleus black/white hole concept. )

Like I have said before, Im not sold yet but I liike where this is going. Hopefully in my time we can get a more solid grasp on QM/T than we do now. Alot of great truths but even more questions. We are definitely getting somewhere though.

It seems to me that you are pulling some of your stuff from (Christopher Holmes)..."Metaphysics and zero point field"

Have also looked into "holographic universe".
You mentioned fractals/Mandelbrot sets, they do go to infinity, but only as a math. construct, nothing physical/tangible. You cannot prove infinity in linear time reality.

Also you mentioned spinner technology, Then you probably heard of Nassim Haramein: (At the resonance project foundation) Where he and his team of scientists have found a new solution to Einstein's field equations. And describe the collective behavior of the "plasma" dynamics of ergospheres orbiting the event horizons of black holes.

It appears to me that you are desperately trying to consolidate the spiritual world (for which there is no supporting evidence) with that which science teaches. This means that you are thinking with the pre-disposition that the connection exists. I think when addressing such things it is important to think objectively and without any bias, because only then are you likely to find the truth.

@Randy
"And, James Joyce talked about epiphanies, you should read his work."

Everyone should. On that , I will quote "Stephen Hero" in which two people are talking about epiphanies.

"By an epiphany he meant ' a sudden spiritual manifestation, whether in the vulgarity of speech or of gesture or in a memorable phase of the mind itself. He believed that it was for the man of letters to record these epiphanies with extreme care, seeing that they themselves are the most delicate and evanescent of moments. He told Cranly that the clock of the Ballast Office was capable of an epiphany. Cranly questioned the inscrutable dial of the Ballast Office with his no less inscrutable countenance:

-Yes, said Stephen.

I will pass it time after time, allude to it, refer to it, catch a glimpse of it. It is only an item in the catalogue of Dublin's street furniture. Then all at once I see it and I know at once what it is: epiphany.

-What?

-Imagine my glimpses at that clock as the gropings of a spiritual eye which seeks to adjust its vision to an exact focus. The moment the focus is reached the object is epiphanised. It is just in this epiphany that I find the third, the supreme quality of beauty.

-Yes?said Cranly absently.

No esthetic theory, pursued Stephen relentlessly, is of any value which investigates with the aid of the lantern of tradition. What we symbolise in black the Chinaman may symbolise in yellow: each has his own tradition. Greek beauty laughs at Coptic beauty and the American Indian derides them both. It is almost impossible to reconcile all tradition whereas it is by no means impossible to find the justification of every form of beauty which has ever been adored on the earth by an examination into the mechanism of esthetic apprehension whether it be dressed in red, white, yellow or black. We have no reason for thinking that the Chinaman has a different system of digestion from that which we have though our diets are quite dissimilar. The apprehensive faculty must be scrutinised in action.

HOW IT ALL BEGAN
THE WAY THE CONSCIOUS COSMOS COMES INTO BEING AND HOW IT WORKS
Astro Biological Coenergetics (ABC) - is a scientifically philosophical holographic, fractal involved field theory of cosmogenesis, mind, memory, information and consciousness—based on the fundamental propositions that subjective consciousness (awareness, will) is an a priori quality of the underlying, unconditioned ABSOLUTE space—located everywhere in RELATIVE space-time... And that the entire cosmos is a hologram—with all structural information contained in every absolute zero-point "singularity" (infinite ABSOLUTE space) at the origtn of all fields and forms in finite RELATIVE spacetime... Where all such fields' fractal harmonics steps down octavally in frequency phase orders ranging between zero and infinite.

This theory further postulates that total relative gravitational/electrodynamic spacetime, including the higher orders of fractal involved cosmic hyperspacetime fields and all their mass/energy fields (em & gravitational radiation) and forms (particle-standing waves)—both in sub-quantum hyperspacetime and in our lowest frequency phase order physical/material quantum spacetime—are generated from the spin momentum (ZPE) of the “singularity” surrounding each proto-conscious zero-point of primal or absolute SPACE located everywhere throughout total hyperspherical spacetime…'

...'In a broad and general way it might be suggested that there are three lines of 'approach' to the study if the universe. There is the line which considers only the materialistic aspect, and is occupied with only that which can be seen, which is tangible, and which can be proven. A second is that of supernaturalism, which recognises not so much the material side of things as that which is called divine; it deals with the life side, and with the spirit aspect, viewing Life as a power extraneous to the solar system and to man, positing that power as a great creative Agent, Who creates and guides the objective universe and yet is outside of it. The third line called the idealistic concept-recognises material form, but sees also the life within it, and posits a Consciousness or Intelligence which is evolving by means of that outer form. ....(extract from Consciousness of the Atom)
I guess I'm attempting to follow the idealistic concept-because it seems to resonate for me in a special way and endeavours to blend the other two closer together.
One might consider the 'idea' of man as an atom or unit of consciousness -a unit of light/intelligence. The atom -man might be defined as a living entity, a little vibrant world
holding within the sphere of influence the lives of the cells within the body.
The atom is spoken of as possessing energy and the power to change from one mode of activity to another... ''absolute intelligence thrills through every atom of the world''..

I understand that there is some speculation which suggests that perhaps the next discovery may reveal to us the fact that the electrons may be worlds within worlds-and that the electron may be divided and subdivided into ''psychons''
I am reminded of the ancient injunction 'Man know thyself, and thou shall know the Universe'....and also 'the kingdom of God lies within'....

Someone mentioned meditation-it is essentially a scientific approach (occult meditation) that has a distinct 'effect' on the atoms of matter by generating and increasing a certain 'quality' of 'light' within the atoms of the body. The following passage offers much food for thought....

...'it is argued, nothing can ever attain the speed of light.

Nothing, that is, except light. Light travels at the speed of light. And it does so because it is not a material object; its mass is always precisely zero.

Since light travels at the speed of light, let’s imagine a disembodied observer (pure mind with no mass) traveling at the speed of light. Einstein's equations would then predict that, from light's own point of view, it travels no distance and takes zero time to do so.

This points towards something very strange indeed about the light. Whatever light is, it seems to be in a realm where there is no duration; no before, and no after. There is only "Now."

This experience of the 'Now' is frequently reported by many meditators. Perhaps the very process of concentrated 'thinking'(meditation) produces light which in turn influences the 'brain' and galvanises the body into some kind of activity.

When did my message say or imply that I dispute evolution or any laws of physics. When did I imply that a so called spiritual feeling is non-personal nor am I trying to spread any of my personal feelings. When did I mention prayer?????? I was addressing meditation which is completely no affiliated with religion. I think you should learn to read and try and preserve at least some comprehension as to what is being said. So when you reply say @Ashish the great. This is to see if you actually know how to read.

Well I read a study some time back explaining the benefits of meditation, in that it can recharge the brain and can help increase ones attention span, etc. Now people perceive meditation as an act that can make us more spiritual, and its from this that people make the extension that this is some kind of external force. The reason they do is because often meditation can feel like alchemy. To me at least this is misguided and not necessarily a rational conclusion. There is a neuroscientist called Sam Harris (i think) who is a militant atheist but also acknowledges these so called benefits to being spiritual.

For me personally spirituality can be anything from appreciating a beautiful sunset or trying to comprehend the vastness of the universe or even simply in awe of the laws of physics that exist. I find a great deal of solace and joy in these things. So I consider myself to have a spiritual side to my personality, even though I have no religious beliefs. Call me crazy for being 'spiritual' but I'm not going to give it up.

No doubt that spirituality does indeed exist. But where does it exist? Its seems obvious to me that it belongs in the minds of those that experience or feel it.... but so does love, hate, jealousy, anger, etc. So what's real is simply what you can convince yourself of.

@kurt
Its funny. I noticed that those people that come and comment about a person's intelligence or about how they dont care much for that person , do so but never have anything to add on the actual topic at hand. Its never ," Hey you. I dont care for you much and here is my opinion on this and why." Its always " Randy talks a lot but really doesn’t say anything! etc," or "You guys are this and that etc."

If you could , please tell me your opinion on Quantum Mechanics and maybe a little on how this relates to Newton Laws and the observable. ( As simply as possible sinc the subject is so lengthy .)Or are you going to say that god holds everything together? Maybe you might even take a cheap shot at me too? I dont know , you might understand more about it than most. Im curious as to whether or not you are serious or just another upset creationist about someone pi**ing in the holy cheerios and thats why the only remark you had was one of spite. Hmmm? Seriously. Out of all due respect.

@Randy2 (duece)
Wow. You sure did bring alot to the table. Not. We would all like to know your opinion on the same as above. Please. Im curious.

Perhaps it may be suggested that Science and Spirituality have something in common..'light'. The light at the centre of the 'atom' and the light of consciousness in man....I enjoyed the following passage from Peter Russell which I hope I might share...

Unknowable Light

Kant argued that the noumenon–the "thing-in-itself," the physical reality that is apprehended by the senses and interpreted by the mind, but never experienced directly–transcended space and time.

A hundred and twenty years later, we find Einstein lending support to Kant. Time and space are not absolutes. They are but two different appearances of a deeper reality, the spacetime continuum–something beyond both space and time, but with the potential to manifest as both space and time. But the spacetime continuum itself, like Kant’s noumenon, is never directly known.

If we think we can picture what is going on in the quantum domain, that is one indication that we've got it wrong.

Erwin Schrödinger

Light, too, has unknowable qualities. We never see light itself. The light that strikes the eye is known only through the energy it releases. This energy is translated into a visual image in the mind. Although the image appears to be composed of light, the light we see is a quality appearing in consciousness. What light actually is, we never know.

Light seems to lie beyond reason and any commonsense understanding, a finding that again parallels Kant’s conjectures. Reason, he said, was not an intrinsic quality of the noumenon, but was, like space and time, part of the way the mind made sense of things. If so, it should not be that surprising that our minds find it so hard to comprehend the nature of light. It may be that we will never be able to make sense of it. With light we may have reached the threshold of knowability.'

Its funny. I noticed that those people that come and comment about a person's intelligence or about how they dont care much for that person , do so but never have anything to add on the actual topic at hand. Its never ," Hey you. I dont care for you much and here is my opinion on this and why." Its always " Randy talks a lot but really doesn’t say anything! etc," or "You guys are this and that etc."

If you could , please tell me your opinion on Quantum Mechanics and maybe a little on how this relates to Newton Laws and the observable. ( As simply as possible sinc the subject is so lengthy .)Or are you going to say that god holds everything together? Maybe you might even take a cheap shot at me too? I dont know , you might understand more about it than most. Im curious as to whether or not you are serious or just another upset creationist about someone pi**ing in the holy cheerios and thats why the only remark you had was one of spite. Hmmm?

I read through the whole thread, Randy talks a lot but really doesn't say anything! Constantly criticizing everyone then begging for replies to his useless queries, pretends to be smarter than everyone else here but can't spell many simple words and uses poor grammar; makes one wonder.

"I am not sufficiently endowed and therefore cannot reach to the levels of your understanding." and "but I will bow out gracefully from this Forum and end on the following note"

Why so quick to quit and retreat? If there are thing in which you do not understand , why not ask questions and research? I didnt see you as a person who would so easily give up on a topic just because of the lack of understanding. You self-proclaim "A searcher of truth" etc but yet throw up your hands without first trying to understand or be undestood.

I fel the same as Randy, I didnt really get what you were trying to say in your last post. Try using less words and breaking each point you have down simply and in individual paragraphs .

..
Thank you for your post and introduction to the Feynman Lectures ..............I am not sufficiently endowed and therefore cannot reach to the levels of your understanding.I have a deep respect for your knowledge.. for all knowledge as it goes. I'm really just an ole hippie and seeker of Truth-I guess there are many approaches Maths/Science being one of them..My attempts initially at joining in this dialogue were somewhat thwarted so I changed my name to Sophia...Of course I can't give you equations...but I will bow out gracefully from this Forum and end on the following note...

The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven,

The Hunter with his dogs pursues his circuit.

O perpetual revolution of configured stars,

O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,

O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying

The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries
Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust

'Knowledge is the Hall of Learning. It is might be termed the sum total of human discovery and experience, that which can be recognised by the five senses, and be correlated, diagnosed, and defined by the use of the human intellect. It is that about which we feel mental certitude, or that which we can ascertain by the use of experiment. It is the compendium of the arts and sciences. It concerns all that deals with the building and development of the form side of things. Therefore it concerns the material side of evolution, matter in the solar systems, in the planet, in the three worlds of human evolution, and the bodies of men.'
''Wisdom is the product of the Hall of Wisdom it has to do with the development of the life within the form, with the progress of the spirit through whose ever changing vehicles, and with the expansion of consciousness that succeed each other from life to life. It deals with the life side of evolution-with the essence of things and not the things themselves, it is the intuitive apprehension of truth apart from the reasoning faculty, and the innate perception that can distinguish between the false and the true, between the real and unreal. Wisdom is the science of the spirit, just as knowledge is the science of matter. Knowledge is separative and objective, whilst wisdom is synthetic and subjective. Knowledge divides; wisdom unites. Knowledge differentiates whilst wisdom blends. What then is meant by the understanding?''

@ Chris....'Most of Science is indeed more like philosophy....'The rift between Science and Religion is not as wide as we have been led to believe..Removing the barriers that separate through collaborative effort indicates a way forward -the trend towards Synthesis holds the key to greater knowledge and understanding.
The following seems to me worthy of note...

'Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. -Gottfried Leibniz, 1670

..'Without this new theoretical model providing the necessary connection between things that exist, we can have no causal theory of knowledge, leaving the Sciences founded on Induction from repeated observation, which is always uncertain, rather than deduction from metaphysical principles, which is certain. -Geoff Haselhurst, 2005

The second comment (Shawn) said that this doc was more like philosophy than science. He's right. However, most of science is more like philosophy than the scientific community is willing to admit. Although it moved rather slow, it provided a decent view of where the Standard Model is currently. To wit: the universe popped out of nothing, and expanded into everything we can see or determine to exist.

And another thing, Science, especially math, will always be the same,
2+2 will always equal 4, no matter where in the universe you are. Aliens??, might be different wordage, but will always mean the same thing.
Even in alternate universes?? with different laws of physics, 2+2 will always equal 4? that might be a supposition on my part though.

Show us how they have incorporated Einstein gravitons into Quantum gravity, or even came up with a Quantum gravity paradigm that makes sense, or actually even anything! about Quantum that makes sense.

Newtonian and Einstein physics hold true at macro level, but everything breaks down at micro/Quantum level, RE: chaos, there must be intent/force, to coalesce energy into matter, but where does the intent/force come from??

Newton laws are just the consequences by quantum laws.(2nd law of motion F = dp/dt.)
Non-relativistic Q/M(Explore all paths),the N/M (Follow the path of least action) of course we should know classical mechanics from high school. Well some of us paid attention.

The truths of Newton come straight out of the truths of Q/M.Newton’s law is a consequence of "least action" which in itself a consequence of Q/M.

@homie12. The human race are a speck of dust observing the beach. The holes in the big picture are to be expected, even encouraged as the gateway to new knowledge. It is easy to criticize but to create a new paradigm is tough and the creative minds that do this like Einstein however wrong you may feel they are should be applauded.

Please elaborate on Thornhills work :(
Probably hard to do because unlike Einstein it hasnt been criricized for 100 odd years.

Oh and the standard model doesnt explain very much. The background radiation temp was not what bigbangers predicted. So essentially what u have is a group of people protecting their paycvhecks. Firing or bullying others who dont agree with them, bigbang relativists are at the end of their paradigm. we now have the instruments to effectiviely measure things in the universe. The bigbang doesnt explain very much so why do they insist it does? Wallace Thornhil is a true genius unlike Einstein. Check out his model.

how can the sun consume itself and still hold on to the planets? thats the standard model. dark matter and dark energy r fudge factors used to fill the holes in the big bang theory. Einstein used time as a geometric property of the universe. How did his relativistic bologne become so popular? How have the physicists let cosmologist hijack reality? Black holes? something u cant see therefore u cant dispute their exsistence? Oh please theory without experimentation leads to something that doesnt resemble reality. Why do we know so much about einstein and so little about nicola tesla? The sun is an electric anode not a fusion engine "thunderbolts of the gods"

Modern cosmological scientist questioned the standard model of how the universe begun,the big bang ,its imperfections and its inability to fit with the new found movement in space. Galactic observations suggest that,there has to be something causing why galaxies rush towards an unknown mysterious direction. The modern universal phenomenon deviates conventionally applicable physical law and is beyond the existing applicability of the presently accepted scientific calculations.Will it signal that we put the present knowledge and understanding to a freeze and open a new space for another theory.
The vastness of space is composed of matter and non matter regions.Could it be that its a little similar in thermodynamic heat and mass distribution principle that "non matter regions attracts more Galaxies and cause galactic rush,Those packed with galactic matters collide spark and gives off pushing effect cause disturbance and unbalance distribution of things in the universal region."'
If it is the absence of anything empirical that puzzled scientists which they referred to as Dark matter,dark energy and dark flow.Then the presence of "nothing"{dark matter} in a known space and to think that this so called "nothing" can cause an "effect", like directional movement on something, is totally a different view from movement and forces law.Mankind has to invent and reinvent theories to "fit" calculations and make mathematical justification on the never ending universal puzzle. Our kind will have to rewrite the needed applicable system of knowledge to move to the next level of cosmic and quantum revolution.
For more than a little time of two centuries the big leap had been made by our scientists upgrading new theories from the old that has flaw and imperfection.
It will not be too long I believe that this simple puzzle of the unknown forces and the existence of the effect made by the absence of something is a simple test to the human boundaries of thinking.

Hint:its not really the dark matter that caused the rushing
movement of galaxies as in direct attraction,but its
the less dense dark region that attracts a denser
dark regions that contained the galaxies or the man
known matter that cause the galactic rush.Like any
regions within material and non material bounded
and unbounded space"EQUILIBRIUM"or "DISTRIBUTION"
law applies.B

These top scientists are saying our universe is just a single bubble amongst what possibly could be thousands/millions of other bubbles... Doesn't it feel great to know how "unimportant" we are in the grand scheme of things, but obviously none of that matters, what matters is relativity. You could be locked up in jail and understand everything about the universe, but still feel terrible or you could be ignorant as a bat, but live the most amazing life.

In the mean time, mean with this: "But you still haven’t shown me the figures for those odds you were talking about, or the fact of where you got the figures for those odds" what did you"

What odds?

Lets not forget that you asserted the claim of basic physics laws and Newtonian laws being wrong. You have yet to substantiate this claim, as I dismissed your vague and immature philosophical notion.

What I said earlier still applies: "My take is that you need to either; formulate a specific question, or, specify what element of which theory you think needs revisioning. Asking questions to ask questions is not very productive, it’s fun (i know), but not very productive"

I'm having to type all this on my phone, so when i get home later and have qccess to my laptop, where i can type quicker, i will answer more in depth. But you still haven't shown me the figures for those odds you were talking about, or the fact of where you got the figures for those odds. You said you only deal with factual knowledge, and i want those figures to back up your statement.
And, if you thought that was the "foundation" for what i am saying, then you are not understanding what i'm trying to say. Sorry, but short sentences are all i can come up with when trying to work and type on a phone.
I can reply in better detail later with a keyboard.

"How was that the foundation of my thesis? I think i would build a better foundation for my own thesis"

I'd hope so, yet here we are.. not your proudest moment, perhaps.

"Well since you are a “factual” person, where’s the facts and figures to prove that “they are far more likely to be incomplete, than just plain wrong."

Gps is a fact, telecommunication is a fact, hell, i could list stuff for days. These products are all built on the laws you deem wrong. If those laws were entirely wrong, gps would be a waste, hell our latest grand venture (WMAP) would be a colossal waste of time and resources. The fact that they function shows that the principles/laws whereon their functionality was based and built, is correct.

"It’s not QT thats wrong, its regular physics. The one not in its infancy. The one that cant be used on a quantum level"

You appear to have a vast knowledge concerning QT and QM, perhaps you should enlighten the rest of us. I think i'm safe in assuming there aren't many people here that understand QT in the way you seem to do. Certainly not to an extent to assume that we got the basic physics wrong, but QT is "correct".

Please, tell me what about QT makes it incompatible, or otherwise unable to exist alongside already established laws.

@D-K
How was that the foundation of my thesis? I think i would build a better foundation for my own thesis.
And i could care less about SETI also. I was just making an example. Whether or not there is alien life doesn't even matter.
Well since you are a "factual" person, where's the facts and figures to prove that "they are far more likely to be incomplete, than just plain wrong."
It's not QT thats wrong, its regular physics. The one not in its infancy. The one that cant be used on a quantum level.
Here's a fact for you. The light bulb was NOT a fact before it was invented. It was just a dream, and a "what if" until it was finally made into a factual reality.

3: I have told you (and explained) that they are far more likely to be incomplete, than just plain wrong. QT and our general understanding of quantum mechanics is in it's infancy, there is no way to account for all the variables, and thus to throw away what we have (and works) because it doesn't explain something we don't even fully understand is asinine and counter-productive.

2: "It relates because it brings up the question of the evolution of science. Do you think that if there was intelligent alien life somewhere, that their science and math would be the same as ours? I think not"

With so many variables to consider and "my" limited knowledge and experience concerning alien life, I don't see myself fit to decide on criteria used in by SETI. Furthermore, i'd argue that alien life is not my concern, nor has it ever been a priority for me. I concern myself with factual knowledge.

1: It's the very foundation of your thesis, hardly a small point, and hardly an area where one should be vague. 10 pages is a little much, but your description (paraphrased) "someone somewhere should go back to where he started, and see if something ends up somewhere else"

@D-K
1. Its supposed to be vague. I'm not going to write 10 pages to prove a small point.
2. It relates because it brings up the question of the evolution of science. Do you think that if there was intelligent alien life somewhere, that their science and math would be the same as ours? I think not.
3. All this just goes back to the first point i made, that you can't have two separate laws to explain the same thing. Its all matter and energy, and if an equation faiks to explain something, you dont just make up something else (quantum theory) and ignore the flaw you found. You said yourself that all accepted laws breakdown at the Quantum level. An equation and or theory only breaks down, when it is flawed.

"but i don’t mean that everyone should forget everything instantly. It just means that some scientists should start over in their thinking, and maybe re-think what they know, or even forget what they know, and see where it takes them"

That's extremely vague and insubstantial.

"Take SETI for example. Why is it that we think that if there is Alien life, that they too would’ve come up with radio waves, and start using them in any way"

How do you relate this to Newton v.s Quantum Theory?

Your questions seem rather philosophical, and they seem to lack weight or specific purpose. My take is that you need to either; formulate a specific question, or, specify what element of which theory you think needs revisioning. Asking questions to ask questions is not very productive, it's fun (i know), but not very productive.

@D-K
Yes. You're right in a way and i halfway agree with you. I really didn't want to put in a full diatribe, but when i talk about throwing out basic science and starting over, i didn't exactly mean to forget everything.
Yes, science has gotten us to this point, but we need to go further. So lets go back and yes, in some ways, forget it all and see where it leads us, but i don't mean that everyone should forget everything instantly. It just means that some scientists should start over in their thinking, and maybe rethink what they know, or even forget what they know, and see where it takes them.
Take SETI for example. Why is it that we think that if there is Alien life, that they too would've come up with radio waves, and start using them in any way.
All i'm really saying is that sometimes, a little change can go a long way. And that little change may lead to new theories and even new science. And i ask again would that be so wrong? And for those that don't understand things, that was a rhetorical question.

Ah, but don't forget that those incomplete, possibly false theories lead us to the quantum realm to begin with. I'd argue that rather than tossing them out, we add on to them, and revise where needed. You are implying we toss them out and start from scratch, right?

Re-evaluating existing, "proven" concepts is what science is all about, but rather than simply re-write to fit the picture we should research the reason for inconsistencies. While objective, science does work on key principles, (mathematics, basic physics/chemistry etc. etc.) re-writing would send us back to the dark ages.

Scientific man has always been challenged with limited observational capacity, both on micro and macro level. With technological advancements speeding up at the rate it has, (Moore's law, and then some) I think patience is the key to better observation and testing, thus more accurate theories/additions to theories.

Eintstein came with both "general relativity" and "special relativity", and rather than one disowning the other, they add, unify and provide additional perspective on the fundemantal law they describe. More often than not, seperate theories merge, and they fill in eachother's blanks. It's like everyone has a different piece of the puzzle.

@ Randy
See, that's what i'm talking about. Your small mindedness. You answered nothing. And you're the one who needs an IQ boost. After all, you failed to see that the questions i asked were Rhetorical.
And only people like you fail to understand "Real Science". Real science is the ability to ask questions and to continue to ask questions, even when the answers are put in front of you.
If everyone accepted everything as fact, then mankind would never move forward. It would remain stagnant. Never questioning anything. Einstein and Newton knew this. They didn't accept what was given, and asked their own questions.
People like you, are the same ones that put down Newton and Einstein, and everyone else that had a new idea. As soon as Newton said "Gravity" some moron said newton had a "room temperature IQ". And if Newton had listened to him, then he would not have been famous.
As long as you put me down, then you put down every other scientist that asks "is this right".

@D-K
EXACTLY! That's my point. When the ideas breakdown, you have to find the right answers. You don't just sidestep it and create new laws. Yes, I didn't expect Newton to be able to figure it all out, however, mankind has based and built everything on His and other individuals ideas. But just because we've been able to make things work so far, doesn't make it the right answers. We were able to make it work until Quantum came along. Now it doesn't work anymore, so instead of just accepting things as they are, scientists go back to the drawing board when things don't work. However, in this case, when regular physics didn't work, they just wrote new theories. That's not how you do things.
Look at it this way. When people said thunder was the gods making noises, someone turned around and found a "scientific" explanation. However, people didn't accept both theories to still explain it. They said "oh, the scientific way makes more sense" and got rid of the first theory. But when it camne to quantum physics, when the first laws didn't make sense, instead of throwing them out, we just made another set of laws.
But how can that be? Laws can't just break down at the Quantum level. Whether its Regular Physics or Quantum Physics, ITS ALL STILL MATTER! As soon as the laws stopped working, you don't keep using them. You can't have two separate laws to explain the same thing. That's just nonsense.
Remember, Math and Science are MANMADE. That doesn't make them RIGHT. Yes, GPS works. We've had many inventions because of the Physics and Math that humans made, but that doesn't mean its right.
Everyday, we are having to rewrite the things that we know. So I ask, why not basic science itself? Why would it be wrong to rewrite it?
One day, we will have the final answers, and mankind will say to itself "So that's why the other explanations didn't work". And until then, we will only be able to get so far.

Pretty much any excepted natural law breaks down at the quantum level. Newton based his laws (mostly) on observations, it'd be a bit unfair to expect him to have figured out the mechanics on quantum level.

Newton's and Einstein's laws and theories are (probably) incomplete, but one can hardly dismiss them to "return to the drawing board". Gps (for instance) wouldn't be working if either one of those laws were simply false.

The only thing we can conclude based on the premise of incomplete laws is that a TOE at this point might be a fruitless endeavor, as basing a grand theory on several smaller incomplete theories.

We cannot enter the age of mastery without ending the age of discovery.

Here's the problem. Everything we know was made by us. Humans. Newton and Einstein weren't gods. They are just as flawed as every other human. Even now, we still rewrite science to suit our needs.
Let me ask you this. If Newton Mechanics are so perfect, then how come they don't work at the Quantum level? Why do you need two different sets of laws to explain the exact same thing? Whether it's Micro, or Macro, it's all still Matter. The same laws should be able to be applied period. Newtonian Mechanics were fine until we got to the Quantum level. But when we got there and found things to be different, instead of going back to the drawing board like we should have, mankind simply said "well let's just create a different set of laws. We'll call it Quantum Theory".
As far as I know, real scientists aren't supposed to accept equations when they prove not to be able to explain something anymore. It's called a flaw.
Until we go back and rewrite everything, we will never be able to fully understand the universe.

@Randy
We could send you two in for a little sabotage , you know , get you guys some jesus cruisers, (sandals)
some braided hemp belts , a couple peace sign t- shirts , and teach you a couple anti - war songs and Achems can already play the drums. LOL Nah that wouldn't work. As soon as you guys started talking Im sure they'd know you weren't one of them and the whole deal would be off. Plus , I dont know that Randy would even be able to get to the peace sign t- shirts without vomiting. Ha!

In the beginning there was only vast mass, no empty space at all.
Then from nowhere suddenly nothing appeared, tearing apart all mass violently.
For every piece of mass destroyed emptyness fills its spot and this continues till this day ...

What makes you think that am fighting against you? Au-Contraire!
I just figure there is much more then what you stark, bleak, mathematical, rationalists portray. As in Carl Sagan, I must be the Bozo! (LOL)

Hippie?? Well, was a drummer in a Rock Band when I was younger, if that is what you mean. When I say when was younger, am older then you. (LOL) Still play drums as a hobby. Was never no hippie, worked my a*s off since I quit school at 15 years old.

@Realism
Orbital /áwrbit'l/ noun. (Phys) Space in an atom occupied by an electron. A subdivision of the available space within an atom for an electron to orbit the nucleus. an atom has many orbitals, each of which has a fixed size and shape and can hold up to two electrons.

Like I said fixed and specific.

But hey, I am no expert by all means, I dont know as much as alot of people on here do , but I am a strong believer in the presence of patterns in everything around us and the belief that we can explain these patterns with math. Even if we cant so far, there will be a time.

@Realism "So what about our understanding of the atom brings you to the conclusion that everything is a mechanical system.
Ever heard of quantum mechanics????

Poor choice of words.
Whats mechanical about an atom?
Well lets see , start with the most known.
1 Electrons of the same size and/or energy can hold X amount of electrons .The first shell could hold 2 electrons, the second 8 electrons, the third 18 electrons, etc until 7
2 When full, electrons were found at higher levels.
3 Chemical properties are based on this.
4 When full ,outer shells of the element do not react.
5 Its a give and take with them to get a full shell.
Seems to be pretty mechanized, to me.

Thats what we know from Bohr's model of the atom (early 1900's)but when it comes to QM/T nobody really knows it. But it is still the spawn of many mechanical truths going way back to Newton,Einstein,Gribbin, and Feynman etc.And when you start getting into it more in depth you should be able to see a constant mechanical/mathematical pattern.Even though we havent pinned it down yet we still use the same mechanics to explain what we do know.The rest is still speculation until we can test these theories and prove one way or the other.Kind comes down to having a little "faith" in QM/T , which I for one am not a person to put faith in anything.When we can prove it Ill buy in but for now I still say everything that is has a mechanical system of some type.Even if we cant see it,yet.

QM/T also dictates that "Quantum mechanics shows that electrons in an atom can only possess specific quantities of energy."Specific quantities! And when you get into orbitals and molecular bonding , each one still has its specific shape around the nucleus. Mechanics of any kind has a set of rules in which all participants go by.

Well, I have looked into the stem cell research, obviously. I mean, I washed out of medical school, but I still keep abreast of the medical sciences...

It would be massively expensive, frankly. These Interferon shots are expensive, but I can usually manage one shot a month... (sometimes I have to skip it, but you know...).

And, so far, everything is fine. I went blind once, that was scary, and my left arm and leg get all wonky every now and then... but what the heck? People through-out history have suffered much worse than I ever will.

I have it too easy, frankly. I do not care if I wind up in the wheelchair, I can still run my business from a chair, but my mind... that is the thing. If I start to lose cognition, then... all bets are off...

@Randy
Stop drinking , Ha! If you are gonna go ,might as well enjoy what time you do have.But hey, be optimistic here , you never know. Look at Stephen Hawking amongst others that had a so called "time limit".
I dont know the figures on stem cells but I would imagine its not cheap. But do you really think it would be more then 1500$ overseas, like Germany perhaps.Or maybe in the East,India etc?

Actually, no, I am aware of alternative treatments, but I really don't care to pursue them. Firstly because of costs, and secondly: really... why bother?

I mean, if you are younger than me, then your life is more valuable. I can maybe teach and work to make our country a little better, but really, evolutionarily, younger men and women are more important to nature.

Which is why I spend so much time with my beautiful nieces and nephews and try to teach them history, and maths, and science...

"Well at least what you take seems to have some positive effects . Would you say that the bad is worth the good?"

Yes. I would say that adversity makes strong organisms. I would say that as hard as my life is, it makes me a stronger person. I say to life, "Beat the cr*p out of me! Make me bleed you b*st*rd! I will achieve anyway!"

So... you kknow... "bring it on!"... I guess! Until the end comes and that will be a great relief. But 'till then, I have to achieve and prosper for my family and to help my country, (as best I can, anyway...).

Yes, my brother, managed health care is purest evil. I have the best health coverage I can afford, (as I have to pay for it out of my own pocket), but it really is just like a 20% coupon for health care.

Batman forbid I have to spend any real time in a hospital... I'll lose my house!

Well, Interferon B is not quite the same as the Interferon A they use for liver patients and other auto-immune disorders.

It does have debilitating effects, but not quite as bad as Interferon A. That stuff is brutal.

@Randy
Thats 1 expensive shot dude. I didnt know you were fighting that monster. Very sorry to hear that.Wish the best to you and your battle. I heard that interferon makes you sick like the flu. I knew a guy with cancer (I forget which kind) that had to take that stuff and he said it made him feel like he had the flu. Thats a tough deal.

So both anti-matter and matter will be created equally. Then anti-matter and matter existed perfectly equal.Right? So anti-matter and matter would have crossed paths regardless, leaving alot left not to cross paths in universe (stars , planets and later all living things (people too) We are not supposed to be but are because of 1 little meeting of matters?
Correct me if Im wrong. This is kind of a question not a statement.

It will take alot of time for me to actually be able to debate it though. Ive really only barely scratched the surface on it. I am still trying to figure it out. If anyone can break it down for me Id surely be thankful. Hint , Hint.

The "toe of god" thing is some pretty interesting stuff. Ive kind of been trying to do some research on it myself. Have you seen Fermilab-Pub-10/114-E
Evidence for an anomalous like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry.
Crazy , man. How baryogenesis is the process thought to
be responsible for the matter-antimatter asymmetry of
the universe.Of course the equations are a little too complex for me but I think I get it. I gave a link to the actual paper up for review along with all equations and info but its being moderated.Its pretty to see.They break it down to the math for you ,I know you would appreciate its beauty.

I watched this whole doc. only to realize the title "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong"? Has nothing to do with the doc. they mention, briefly, this idea of dark flow and that's it! Same ol' same ol'. I only watched it to find out new ideas, there are none.

if dark matter does not interact with normal matter then how is it interacting with galaxies holding them together by gravity Seems like a obvious question... Is it possible the universe is not expanding but is flowing and what is holding galaxies together is the drain effect or a flow effect NOW that makes more sense than dark matter

Well, it's basically hinting at an explanation of how matter came to dominate anti-matter. I had a little hypothesis a year or so ago about how matter has a tendency to cluster up and anti-matter simply repelling it's own kind, leaving it at a disadvantage in the clashes, but had no means of actively testing of course.

Couldn't find anyone with a similar hypothesis and reasoned that there must be an argument waiting to tear it to shreds, I then abandoned it.

Ah, but consciousness bestows me with free will as well, I have no desire to act on mere instinct. My purpose is not to contribute to the betterment of the species if such a choice is mine to make. My purpose is that of my own, I hold no allegiance be it naturalistic or religious.

I have stated before how I have relinquished my role in a common goal, common purpose. I sacrifice the benefit of others, to the benefit of my own. If I (and I alone) see justful reason in procreation, I shall make it so. External factors (as aforementioned) are not represented in the equation.

I agree with most of that, and I'd wish it so. One should take a child-raising aptitude test, but alás.. human rights and all that.. this will not happen, sadly. I have thus banned it from mind, and shall give it thought no longer.

Yes, we should pass on good genes, but what if I was to be uncaring to the fate of the world, or the human race. What if I'm cold and hard and only cared for myself (and cat) and truth? I seek not to meddle actively in affairs of others, I seek them to not meddle in mine.

To care for the world and it's fate, is to care. I do not. I care for myself and those I love.

@DK “From an evolutionary perspective, genes are important.. From a personal perspective (leaving emotion out of it) genes are unimportant”

Well thats what Im saying , shouldn’t we pass on our genes if we have stronger genes than most to pass?But hey , to each his own. Its really a personal decision on that one. I just feel like my contributes to the gene pool were worth passing. To some I say dont pass your inbred genes onto the world.

Everyone will feel different . Some would say that everyone has a right , but I strongly disagree. Have you seen some of these people who have kids and dont care for any of the five they had from five different women? Disgracefull. Or the ones that are complete idiots and trashy passing on their unwanted genes? I have a problem with that. Thats just me , though. No offense to anyone . If the shoe fits as they say.

I meant having kids screws you out of objectively deciding whether or not it would be better to have kids or cats.
It's an unanswerable question, one that could never be judged objectively, from either side.

Genes themselves have no worth to pass on, my knowledge on the other hand, is useful. Blueprints for hormone distribution and amounts of melanine count for nothing in themselves, knowledge is everything in comparison.

From an evolutionary perspective, genes are important.. From a personal perspective (leaving emotion out of it) genes are unimportant

@DK "Once you have kids, you lose ability to judge objectively so bite your tongue, parents who lay eyes on these words!"

Not necessarily , I didnt. Besides dont you think you have a few genes you want to pass down?
Kids are alot of work,indeed but alot of joy as well. They keep you honest, ya know , out of trouble for me. I wouldn't change it for anything , man.

Good to hear that I am not alone, but in fact, part of a group of outcasts and social paria's. (fond of paradoxes too)

@Randy:

I'm still indecisive whether or not I'm having kids.. On the one hand, i'd enjoy budgeting enormous sums of money more if it goes to "D-K's silly things" fund than my child's college fund..

On the other hand.. I'm way to arrogant to let my supremely superior intellect go to waste.. I must make it live on through the medium of a child.. or a tape recorder, still haven't decided on the cost-effective|rewarding ratio.

Child-surrogate cats are fine... they whine and drain less.
and objectively it makes sense to attain current quality of life, which is a stress-free/kids-free environment.

Once you have kids, you lose ability to judge objectively so bite your tongue, parents who lay eyes on these words!

"Oh, i’m not a true psychopath though, I love my family (and cat) and i’ll go to irrational lentghs for them, but that’s where I draw the line. The rest of the world can pretty much drop dead and leave me inaffected by it.

So while I’m capable of being sensitive (and thus i’m sensitive) I can eliminate it when it comes to anything but my direct family. It took effort to be this way, but it’s worth it :D"

Yes, indeed. My feelings exactly. I only have so much that I can give, emotionally. So that goes to my family (and my cats! Which are certainly child surrogates for my wife and me, but HEY! I don't have to send them to college!).

It's up to everyone to pay attention and "look-out" for their own. I respect and man or woman that does that...

Heck man , the more you talk the more I say, " Ha! I like this guy ." Preach on , man. I despise most people I meet due to their immoral and irrational ways and outlook on life. Those of us who feel as you do are hopefully not a dying breed.

Oh, i'm not a true psychopath though, I love my family (and cat) and i'll go to irrational lentghs for them, but that's where I draw the line. The rest of the world can pretty much drop dead and leave me inaffected by it.

So while I'm capable of being sensitive (and thus i'm sensitive) I can eliminate it when it comes to anything but my direct family. It took effort to be this way, but it's worth it :D

It is painful....ly ridiculous how unintelligent people around me are. I despise their illogical ponderings and their inability to see truth or appreciate it. Truth is devoid of emotion, yet people decide and function pretty much solely on emotional reasoning.

I hate humans, except those that embrace logic and seek truth. To sum up: the more "machine" a man is, the more reasonable he becomes in my eyes.

Trust me, I'm not a "good" man in the traditional sense. Sometimes I seem like the worst enemy to my best and only friend, as I question his logic, his reasoning, and his assumptions. NOTHING is sacred, Randy... that is a view only a very select few are able to live by, and i'm one of them.

(Oh, and you are not the psychopath you think you are! You just seem like the type that doesn't want to get involved with humans because it is so painful... I get that! Me, too! But, that doesn't make you a psychopath... it makes you a very sensitive person. And that is a good thing...)

@Kask..a breath of fresh air-Thank you the following 'enlightened'comments.

....'Fortunately each of us has unique interests, strengths and experiences. Let’s learn from each other and appreciate the different views people bring to the table.
....'So because we all could be wrong somewhere in our “belief” system, we need to have some humility and some openness.

In confronting the Mysteries of the universe one is guided by the 'intellect'-but at some point without humility it cannot penetrate further...'intellect itself is left outside with all names things'.

I think it is fair to push each other, provoke even, so that we all can move to a better understanding of the life we are experiencing. But I think this would be best done in a collaborative fashion, in a manner allowing each other to grow. This site is actually a great tool, but can’t we move beyond the harsh tactics some use?

I understand that those who don’t believe in a God can’t stand the dogma of those who do. Much like those who do believe in a God can’t stand the dogma of those who say there is no God. But there are reasonable people in both camps, who recognize their limitations of knowledge, improperly held beliefs and possible misinterpretations of the facts. No one individual knows everything.

Fortunately each of us has unique interests, strengths and experiences. Let’s learn from each other and appreciate the different views people bring to the table. Let’s move beyond the debates of God’s existence because of some new science. Scientific method will likely never have any say on whether God exists or not. Why? Because a “God concept” can easily set on top of all the natural processes we see around us; much like a two layer cake. Science can test everything in the natural layer, but the other layer remains untestable, at least with current methods. There is no reason to try and kill God. It’s clear that the majority of the world believes in a deity or deities. Let’s not be blind to this fact and misinterpret its implications. We don’t know what it means exactly, so let’s not exclude this in ignorance.

Likewise, Christians need to understand that there are many educated people who accept more likely interpretations of Genesis chapter 1, and have no issues running freely with science and its Theories.

So because we all could be wrong somewhere in our “belief” system, we need to have some humility and some openness.

Christians, who are concerned that God will disappear from their life, because they listen to the logic of science, might just find that God becomes more obvious to them. Doesn’t God encourage you to Ask, Seek and Knock.

Keep an open mind people, there are lots of studies that show we walk around missing reality due to some preconceptions or beliefs. We don’t know what we don’t know, but what we think we may know, possibly keeps us from seeing what is really there.

@ Miton Babb, what this doc is saying is that if you weigh all the matter in a galaxy (Done my measuring light i think) there is not enough matter to create the required amount of gravity to keep the outermost galactic matter circulating at the speed it is observed to be moving at. Hence there is either a lot (85%) of hidden matter or some extra gravity that is not accounted for by the observable matter.

The best minds do not need MATH.
This doc is news to me, the last I understood was that the universe was accelerating away from the origin of the bang. Unreliable observations by professionals is an indication of some thing wrong, lies?

Patrick Murphy and Shawn O'Brian grew up together and were lifelong friends. Patrick developed cancer, and was dying. While on his deathbed, Patrick asked Shawn, "O'Brian, come 'ere. I 'ave a request for ye." "Shawny ole boy, we've been friends all our lives, and now I'm leaving 'ere. I 'ave one last request fir ye to do."
"Anything Patrick, anything ye wish. It's done."
"Well, under me bed is a box containing a bottle of the finest whiskey in all of Ireland. After I die, and they plant me in the ground, I want you to pour that fine whiskey over me grave so it might soak into me bones"O'Brian was overcome by the beauty and in the true Irish spirit of his friend's request, he asked, "Aye, tis a fine thing you ask of me, and I will pour the whiskey. But, might I strain it through me kidneys first?

Don't mention fitba' to me! Celtic fc fan - very bad season for us! World cup this summer - Scotland(not there again!) and Ireland cheated out by Thierry Henry. Still, can always take comfort in England's inevitable defeat in a painful penalty shootout!
You've uncovered the religion in my life - 'mon the hoops!

Did you hear about the Irish man who tried to blow up a car? He burnt his lips on the exhaust.

Murphy walked into an American Bar. He sat down and asked the Bartender "Give me three shots o' your finest Irish Whiskey!" the Bartender complies.Then asks, "Murphy, would it be better for yeh if I put all three shots of Irish Whiskey into one glass?
"Murphy replied, "well no. See I have two other brothers back at home, and everytime I come into a Pub or Bar I order a shot for each o' them so I can remember the good times."
Well, after another week of this routine, Murphy comes into the bar and only asks for two shots of Irish Whiskey.
The bartender says "Murphy, is everything ok? Did somethin' happen to one of your brothers?"
"Oh no", Murphy said, "I just decided to quit drinkin!"

Your right, I am going to go stand in and put my nose in a corner. I have been bad today. * head down , dragging feet *

All BS aside , you are right.

@ McGarvey
See Randy mixed us up because all us Micks sound the same. Just kidding.
Here is the lords prayer I liked:

Our Father whom art in Wexford ,
Football be thy name.
Thy will be done,
the cup be won,
on turf as well as on grass.
Give us this day, goalie gloves,
and forgive us our penalties as we forgive those who slide tackle us.
Lead us not into elimination but deliver us to victory.
In the name of the green the orange and the peace bettween .
Score.

I agree that I need to shape up, but I don't think this joke is racist(poor,yes, I'll give you that - funny? Probably only to me!) - isn't it the equivalent "Pat McGroin" and "Phil McCavity"?
Nothing against the Chinese(my sister lives in China and speaks Mandarin) or any other people!
Another poor(racist-against the Irish so that's ok!) joke:

Paddy and Mick were walking down the street when Paddy falls down a manhole.
Mick: "Paddy, are you ok down there?"
Paddy: "Sure, I'm all right Mick, I didn't hurt myself, this hole is full of milk and I landed in it"
Mick: "Milk, Paddy? Is it pasteurised?"
Paddy: "Nah, it's only up to my knees!"

@Randy
My longer apology has been moderated but
I was only kidding. Sorry if I offended anyone .I have alot of respect for both China an India. That was my attempt to make light a bad situation .Didnt mean it as a racial joke.

I have alot of respect for both China an India. That was my attempt to make light a bad situation .
Didnt mean it as a racial joke. My old lady is Navajo and would probably kick the crap out of me for that but my humor is not meant to be in anyways racist as I am just a Mick myself.

(I have found your button I see . I will refrain from comments as such , did not try to offend)
Apologies.

The Indians… they have it going on! Learn Hindi!”You aint lying there! However better Ghandi than Click Clack, Ping Pong or Charlie Chan. Its retarded that we even have to fathom such ideas. I have always for obvious reasons been some what of a believer of an *# chy. Which is hard for some to accept but the times make me feel animosity towards my own country , that I once loved . I'm not saying I'm gonna go postal, no, but that it is a regretfully perilous society indeed.

What is sad about our society is that an American man cannot even afford to go to school and still take care of his family but a foreigner can come over and alot of times get a free ride and then go back to their country. I cant even get a loan and I live here and work my behind off. Just because of a few decisions made almost a decade ago. I cant even get a passport again for 2 more years , own a gun ( I overlook that one) or vote. Not that I would . And all my issues are non-violent . Land of opportunity my freckled rear end. Land of the liars and crooks.

"These are not nor have ever been my problem , mine is money. Enough to get by but not any to spare. Heck we are , as I am not alone , losing the house thanks to the good ole boys in the US government .
It has to get better or we all better start learning Chinese"

I'm so sorry. Yes, it has been horrible. I lost almost all of my savings in the first crash. Only my protected IRA's and some other shelters were unscathed, but really... we have to tap them now to make ends meet...

And I am close to retirement! There is not much more "saving" time left for me!

Just a horror... I am so sorry.

But, I say, the Indians are more likely to be our new overlords. The Chinese have had the number one economy in the world several times through-out history, but they implode on themselves everytime...

@Epicurean_Logic
"Ia lot of commitment, determination and self drive. You almost certainly need to temporarily give up certain life pleasures to do well"

These are not nor have ever been my problem , mine is money. Enough to get by but not any to spare. Heck we are , as I am not alone , losing the house thanks to the good ole boys in the US government .
It has to get better or we all better start learning Chinese.

'YES! Most people do not understand the “art” of math! They think it cold and hard, but there is great BEAUTY in it!'

The guy in this video actually said it well, Maths is like plastisine, it is very flexible without of its rigidity. like mechano you use straight inflexible rectangles to build beutiful larger structures.

'I need to find someway to get back into scholastics without having to deprive my obligations.'

home study courses are good but take a lot of commitment, determination and self drive. You almost certainly need to temporarily give up certain life pleasures to do well.

In the UK ( i think that they also work in the US) the best of these is the open university (O.U). They really are great i wouldn't have got through basic classical physics ( or applied maths as us maths nerds call it) without them. Look into it.

O.U do a lot of research work into many BBC tv programs. and some of their stand alone stuff is good althogh we do like to take the piss out of it quite a bit as it can be a little dry on occasions. I dont think Vlatko can add these to TDF as they are copyrighted as far as i know.

Ignoring the idea that the UK kids are skipping calculus like the US kids... 'cause that is scary...

I speak to this:

"As i say to my students anyone can do the math but having the creative skills to actually build a model using it is the more difficult and as such the more rewarding part.They usually get a bit pissed off at this!"

YES! Most people do not understand the "art" of math! They think it cold and hard, but there is great BEAUTY in it!

@Epicurean_Logic "IAs i say to my students anyone can do the math but having the creative skills to actually build a model using it is the more difficult and as such the more rewarding part.They usually get a bit pissed off at this!"

Excellent point, the ability to take in and recite , means nothing without the ability of application.

Whats fuxed up is , I have a degree in Computer Networking an Security which I have gotten very little use out of and feel like it was wasted time. There just isnt enough work to go around , plus I feel, now, that my talents would be better utilized in math and science. I also am an ASE diesel mechanic which pays alot better than anything Ive had in IT. Got bills to pay and mouths to feed not to mention the wasted student loans. I need to find someway to get back into scholastics without having to deprive my obligations.

Randy, your right in what you say about orbits. classical mechanics seems to work well to describe phenomena up to a solar system's scale of phenomena.

The more interesting side is the creative side of things, that is actually building a math model of a given situation.

As i say to my students anyone can do the math but having the creative skills to actually build a model using it is the more difficult and as such the more rewarding part.They usually get a bit pissed off at this!

Eire , 'I kind of wasted too much time . Now it is too late for me to do it.' so did i but its never too late if this is the gig that you dig! there are a lot of home study courses to get into i reccomend MIT opencousreware its free on the net. look up walter lewin he has a great way of describing things.

'So, how long have you been doing that?' i always like math but was lousy at physics 'till a few years ago when i 'met' Walter and things changed. Been tutoring for 3 years.

Randy, i wish that i could use calculus to make 65k a year. My cashflow is a bit restricted with the glaobal money scam in full flow.

Calculus is simply another name for integration and differentiation as i am sure that you all remember from high school! another name for it is analysis. when you see complex or numerical analysis it just means calculus applied to complex numbers or number theory.

mechanics in all forms uses the powerful tool of calculus to take real situations and describe them mathematically. But only works at a human scale of visualisation and it works very well for this scaling of reality.

@ Epicurean_Logic "II teach calculus and classical (Newtonian) mechanics"
Awesome gig , man. That would be alot of. I always thought about being a teacher but do to unforseen issues , I kind of wasted too much time . Now it is too late for me to do it.
So, how long have you been doing that?

You know , I wonder if , a religious person had aids , would they spread it around too.Since they like passing on disease.

Someone mentioned entopy a simple definition of which goes something like this:

why is it that my desk gets messier and messier over time and doesn't get tidier. the law of entropy states that left alone things will tend to get less organised as opposed to self tidying. we could all do with an anti entropy device to tidy our houses with.

Not sure how and if this relates to dark matter.

I also want to add that science is one of the few fields of knowledge that unashamedly admits that something is wrong or not known and attempts to correct it.

Hey guys, i am back off a two day bender indulging the epicurian side ( still a bit fuzzy to be honest) . Now i guess its back to logic!

Please dont bring god into this Sophia, people do that every time a paradox appears and it is usally just a way to say hah, we dont know, lets fill the gap with god instead of exploring the new knowledge that a paradox is inevitably pointing towards.

I teach calculus and classical (Newtonian) mechanics and the first thing to note is that they are different but complementary ideas...

I can anwer some of your question if you like but its important to realise that we dont know what dark energy is and that is is postulated exactly because classical mechanics tells us that something is required to fill a void in knowledge. so dont shoot the messenger.

How about you change your name to "I am the problem "?
Science has more proof and evidence about physics than you do about your god and you cultists have had thousands of years to try and gather evidence to support your superstitious concept of a ghost and a zombie you call jesux.

Let it go and free youself from yor captures before you waste your life for a dead idea that has no useful place in an intelligent society. Stop spreading your mind murdering plague and infecting the world with lies and false promises , that will never be delivered.
Deicide!

...That there is an administration of the Universe cannot be denied. Something has determined and continues to determine the functioning of natural law, the orderly transformation of matter and energy. It may be the 'curvature of the cosmos',or 'blind chance', or 'universal energy', or an absentee Jehovah, or an 'all pervading Spirit', but it must be something. From one point of view, the question: Is there a God? is promptly answered in the affirmative'

All progression in the realm of consciousness, is naturally by a graded series of awakenings'

@Realism said "It seems to me this documentary is a feeble attempt to re-constrain the universe to a mechanical system."

Everything is some kind of mechanical system. We just cant fully understand it all right now. Science has made some pretty big leaps in the last 75 yrs. Wait and see whats next. We didnt fully undefstand the atom in the early 1900's but look where time and perseverance has taken us.

Perhaps the least complex of solutions is correct? Hmmm, well, then perhaps the standard view is completely wrong since it appears to be a tangled web of rationalization upon rationalization. Sure, the maths work, but the maths are formulated to work. The Plurality of these band-aids on a bullet hole is the problem. Just creating more rationalized explanations doesn't fully explain those persistent anomalies. Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, how about willfully blind scientists protecting their shaky theories? Perhaps we need to truly examine the deep paradox of consciousness. And then COMPLETELY discard the very finite and weak idea of god. Gods aren't required to explain the overwhelming idea of Consciousness. Likewise maths is an incomplete way of understanding our existence. Like a fish in water explaining a waterless world of which the fish has no use. We ignore that which is the only thing we truly have.

I actually had to read some chapters twice to let it really sink in, but as I mentally watched him narrate it, I could not supress an ear-to-ear grin.

He makes me want to know more about science and that, is an amazing quality considering I had no interest whatsoever in cosmology/astronomy. He made me want to watch every doc, read every book and ponder every possibility.. Truly one of the most charismatic global mentors.

"I actually was taking a hit as I typed.. then again, I take hits anytime I do anything..."

Dude, you are SO high! S'OK, I am SO drunk!

All's I'm sayin'... Carl Sagan...

(I have his book, too, of course. All of his books, actually, "The Green Egg" is especially insightful... I am saddened that he didn't see the movie version of "Contact", although, not quite the novel...)

Can't really detect a graviton, it is a carrier of gravity, just like the photon is the carrier of electromagnetism. The weak nuclear force has carriers called W and Z bosons, the strong nuclear force is carried by gluons.
Gravity assumes the speed of light because of gravitons, it is not instant. Say, if the Sun disappeared, it would still take approx. 8 minutes to nullify the Suns gravitational hold on the Earth.

I actually was taking a hit as I typed.. then again, I take hits anytime I do anything..

I did a course in aviation operations for a year, but mainly because we shared a building with the stewardess course.. I dropped out with maybe 10 points out of the necessary 69..
I guess I should've showed up to classes on occasion.. ah well.. hindsight huh.. At least I enjoyed some stewardesses.

What does anyone think of the proposition of gravity being diluted over different dimensions? I can just not get my head around that doozy..

Gotcha. I will look further into him. I am ashamed to say I havent researched his work much. Dont know why. I will make it my next project as of today , since this is the second time that you have said that to me when I got stuck on this topic. Will do.

Ok, I know that a graviton is basically theorized as a particle having no mass and no charge but i cant seem to get a handle on how it ties into or to what impact it has on string theory or holding gravitational force.
Is impact or holding a poor choice of words? Can you break it down so a QT/M noviice can grasp it. I think if I can get that Id be able to put some of the other pieces together.

Layman or not, you still got loads of knowledge about science :-). As to the doc, I guess it's worth watching (in my eyes anyway). I guess I have a bit of a 'problem' but I simply love everything that puts into question the established 'truths' :-)

Have not watched the doc. yet. Yes the supposedly "Big Bang" and then inflation, when everything was going outward faster then the speed of light. That itself is a paradox, because at the speed of light if you could ever get there, time stands still, there is no time, there is no forward or any type of momentum, if there was light, there would be light but going nowhere, everything would be static. period.

Newtonian, and Einstein gravity is perhaps more understandable and makes sense closer to home.
But in the vastness of space probably breaks down, especially at the Event horizon of a black hole.

And then there are Neutron stars that are so condensed that one teaspoon-full of matter would weight as much as 200 million elephants.

One postulation is that to explain our weak gravity it could be either leaking to, (if leaking to maybe why everything is speeding up??) or from a super universe, a Brane that is one planck length from our own. Of course this is quantum physicists maths.

I'm happy you joined here, now there's someone who can talk with some authority :-).

I personally wouldn't get into any discussion involving science, as I, as you know :-), don't have the knowledge for it. But with you in, I can voice my opinion - that I would agree with Randy on the Newton's laws not really working in the case as presented in this doc. There's really too much that we don't understand. What do you think about it?

I think also that he said the gravity between the earth and anything else with mass , is proportional to the mass of the earth, of the object, the square of the distance between centers of the two, right?Universal gravity I think? Basicly he was trying to show how gravity doesnt solely apply on earth but in space too.

Ok, Im taking a swing here. Everyone knows the story about Newton and his apple right? What dawned on newton was that all the force (F)which made it accelerate , the apple, (A) or gravity as we now call it. ,is totally dependant on how much mass(m) the apple has. The force causing the apple to accelerate downward also causes the earth's upward acceleration (3rd law), that too depends on the mass of the earth.
For Randy purposes F= m • a. Of course this equation is basic. Did I even write it correctly? Been a while.
I think you have to take into account the distance from center to center too right? Any one want to elaborate?

@Randy
I will be your huckleberry.
Well let us start with gyroscopes as in gyrospoic effect and aerodynamic lift
Both very hard for people to grasp, and I am no expert but understand for the most part, remember I have only a Bach degree so ease into this. How would we apply this to space travel? Are you familiar with Laithewaite?The guy who invented the linear motor. Do you feel strongly one way or the other as far as his theories?

We touched on newton before about this before but never got to a point.

Jesux died for 'his' sins not yours. The idea of god is slowing down progress by throwing crack pot , 6000 year old superstition at any and all who will listen , blinding the minds of our children from birth from free thought and rational observation Religion is not needed anymore now that we know for afact how we got here. It doesnt take a god to make you moral, that too is a fact.To be religious does not dictate morality . It dictates stupidity and intolerence for reason. Religion also incubates hate for anyone/thing that nullifies the existence of a god. Face it. There is no santa claus and there is no god.
I believe Dawkins said best,
"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

@randy
Please tell me which thread i can search for your best posts so that
I can know how to best respond to you. i don't want to short change you.
I have searched a few and have come up empty. sincerely

here is a repost of mine from another thread which i think is much more relevant here.

if i may quote a Sir James Hopwood Jeans to backup my previous statements .
“The outstanding achievement of 20th century physics is not the theory of relativity or the theory of quanta, or the dissection of the atom, but it is the general recognition that we are not yet in contact with ultimate reality.”
which i believe still holds true more than 60 years later.

@Randy....Thank you for your 'response' -however whilst I respect your passion for Science/Maths the somewhat reactive nature of your reply seems to me to highlight the gulf/separation that arises when one becomes 'attached' to any particular point of view. Bridging that gap would seem to me to be one of the challenges we all face at this time. The key lies in the integration between the diverse points of view. Greater understanding evolves out of collaborative effort rather than a competitive spirit. Ideas as to the nature of the Universe abound..Intellectual ideas are but pale reflections of the universal Ideas knowable through intuition and spiritual realization. These Ideas form part of the underlying matrix of the manifest universes. Ideas exist beyond time and space, as potentials and building blocks of manifestation. They may be considered part of the ‘unmanifest’, when viewed relative to the worlds of form or manifestation.

Hi again had some more thoughts on this one to add to my previous comments above...
We are through Science 'essentially' exploring the Mind of God-Research has been defined as the 'highest form of adoration' but we must take care that we do not fall in love with our own reflection. The mind of man is very much 'a work-in-progress'-intellect and reason are terms that express some aspect of the principle of Cosmic Love and it seems to me that until we deepen our understanding of Love we cannot 'know' the Mind of God.

Your book is meaningless and written by a bunch of insane, desert camel herders that never saw any christ, they made him up… there are NO eye witness accounts of your jesus. That is a fact. Plus, GET A JOB!!!

@Anna Farrell

The USA has enough crazy-people right now, lets talk science, and not whacko-hippie-cr*p, OK? I’ve seen the equations… if you haven’t then don’t join in.

I agree with a previous comment..'the real problem is not the universe but the eyes that see it'...Seems like a good opportunity to post the following...Science and Spirituality are converging-at back of all exoteric Knowledge lies an inner or esoteric core-easily overlooked by the materialistic tendency of the concrete mind.
'Each Solar System is the manifestation of the energy and life of a great Cosmic Existence, Whom we call, for lack of a better term, a Solar Logos. [4]
This Solar Logos incarnates, or comes into manifestation, through the medium of a solar system.This solar system is the body, or form, of this cosmic Life, and is itself triple.This triple solar system can be described in terms of three aspects, or (as the Christian theology puts it) in terms of three Persons.''(Treatise on Cosmic Fire)